Fiction Writing and Other Oddities

Please welcome Kat Duncan for the 4th and final blog in The Wild Rose Press blog tour! Kat is going to talk about creating unique characters which is something she's terrific at doing!

Developing Unique Characters


A reviewer of my romantic suspense, Fifty-eight Faces, recently commented that the villain, Rolf Bauer, sounded more like Snidely Whiplash than a real human being. I was amazed that I'd created such an impression on a reader. Granted, it was not exactly the impression I was going for, but it's a strong connection for a reader to make and that has to count for something.


I remember watching the Rocky and Bullwinkle Show and enjoying the escapades of Dudley Do-right and his arch-enemy, Snidely. Are these unique characters? Hardly. In fact, they are considered stereotypical. But then, I think all characters start from a stereotype. It's what you do with the stereotype that makes a character memorable and unique. Since (hopefully) few of us are personally acquainted with real villains, a writer has to use a heavier hand when it comes to stereotyping villains.


What's really fun for me as a writer is creating secondary characters. I like to play around and make them at least as vivid as main characters, even if they only make a cameo appearance. One of my favorite secondaries is Jimbo Wilson. I plan for Jimbo to be a recurring character. You can meet him for the first time today as he leaps from the pages of my romantic suspense, Six Days to Midnight:


Excerpt:


The dissonant squawk of a two-way radio reached the patio. Janet stared as a hulk of a man ambled up to them in a slow waddling shuffle. He was dressed in greasy gray coveralls, unzipped to his navel, showing his blubberous pink torso. Flaming red hair exploded from his head. A matching five day stubble spread across his face.


"Brandt, my man!" he said in affectionate California surfer twang.


Brandt stood, and they clasped one hand, delivering identical pats on the back with the other.


"Jimbo, good to see you, man."


"Dude, I heard you got a problem with your bird."


"Yeah, an issue in the starboard fuel tank."


"Hey no problem, bro." Jimbo turned to Janet with a broad grin. "Say, who's the chick?" The man awkwardly bowed to take Janet's hand. "Hellooo. I'm Jimbo Wilson, aircraft mechanic. And whooo are yooou?" he intoned in his most romantic voice. He bent to kiss her hand.


"Ah, Jimbo. She's with me," Brandt said, rescuing Janet from his amorous advance.


"Oh, yeah. Gotcha, man." He winked and clicked his tongue at Brandt. "Nice catch."


"Thanks."


"Well, let me take a look at your bird." He dropped a walkie-talkie on the table, then ambled off to examine the jet. Janet watched as a brand new Mercedes panel van drove out onto the runway. With zero sense of urgency or alarm, Jimbo pulled out some equipment and started working under the right wing.


"Who is that guy?"


"James Bradley Osgood Wilson, III, best aircraft mechanic in this part of Africa. Black sheep of a very blue blooded Connecticut family. Thrown out of the American Air Force. He does great work, especially if you need discretion. He has a long clientele list."


"Yo, bro," the walkie-talkie squawked. "I got the video on it. You want it out quick, or you want it out safe?"


"How long for safe?"


"Two days."


"Quick works for me."


"Gotcha, man." Jimbo walked back to the van, gathered up some more equipment then returned to the jet.


From her distance, Janet watched in detached fascination as the improbable man twisted and turned under the wing, manipulating some mysterious device in hopes of snagging the bomb.


"Got it," Jimbo said a few minutes later. "Hey, and I didn't destroy your bird." He held up an object in one hand for them to see.


"What is it?"


"I.E.D. A terrorist bomb."


"Al Qaeda?" Brandt asked.


"I don't think so. Too sophisticated. Not their style. This is professionally engineered. Probably in Europe."


Janet watched as Jimbo casually turned the bomb over several times. Even from this distance Janet could almost see his eyes gleam in fascination at the exquisite prize in his hand.


"Yep. Definitely European. You have some very serious people mad at you, bro."


"Not me. The girl."




I just received a fantastic review from Coffee Time Romance for Six Days to Midnight. "Wow! Six Days to Midnight is loaded with action, suspense, and romance right down to the last sentence. Twists and turns abound, many much unexpected. A great cast of characters tell a story that is pulled right from today’s headlines, which is scary but also makes for great reading material. Kudos to Ms. Duncan for offering readers a great read!"



You can read the full review at: http://www.coffeetimeromance.com/BookReviews/sixdaystomidnightbykatduncan.html


Now's your chance to read it for only 99 cents: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/35415


------
Thank you, Kat, for joining us today!

Characterization and Plot

Some of the writing groups I belong to have recently brought up the question of how to prevent the dreaded "sagging middle" in their stories. This is where the book stops being a page-turner and becomes something you read to put you to sleep at night.

Strangely enough, the most common method of trying to correct for this doesn't really work. Often, a writer will  just throw more danger at the hapless heroine or hero. For example, if the hero is fighting with a bunch of bad guys, the author may just add a few more bad guys or one more bigger-and-badder fight.

Other writers hear the advice "upping the ante" and layer on an "Oh, my gosh, they're going to blow up the world!" moment. Which, while logically you would think would make it more exciting because everyone might die, "everyone" is sort of vague and faceless, and frankly, we don't really care. Interestingly, that's why in the Big Disaster Movies, they always focus on the life-or-death of individual characters and their loved ones--in the midst of the world coming to an end. Because it's the individuals we care about, emotionally.

So really, what can you do?

Here's what I do. I ask a really simple question: What's the worst that can happen to the heroine? (Or hero--depending upon your story.) Hint: the answer isn't: she might die. Nope. The worst is what gives that character nightmares. It's probably easiest if I give you a stupid, but fairly concrete example.

You have a heroine who is painfully shy. I mean painfully, agonizingly shy. She stammers when she tries to talk. Stammers horribly. And the sad part is, she's a brilliant biologist, and can write papers that are wonderful, but she just can't talk in public. Or even very well one-on-one. She can't think on her feet. Fortunately, she doesn't have to worry about it, because she gets a fantastic job for an articulate scientist who can present her information and do the glad-handing necessary to get them grants for their research, etc.

So...what's the worst thing that can happen to her?
Her boss comes down with laryngitis right before he has to present their research at a symposium, and their next critical grant depends upon that presentation. If someone doesn't do the presentation, they'll not only lose face at the symposium, but they'll lose the grant and she'll potentially lose her job (and you know she's horrible at job interviews because she is so inarticulate).

And guess what? She's the only one available to do the presentation.

Now THAT's upping the ante and creating tension. And if you really want to be cruel and make the big dark moment even darker--make her flub up that presentation. They think they're going to have to shut down their research. Then give her a sliver of hope that if she and her boss can talk to Mr. Big, they might get enough money to continue. But then, they have to face a worse horror. Something happens to her boss (he has a heart attack? Grabbed by an evil dude?) and it's now up to her to talk their way out of the situation and get the grant--whether that is to get help or talk a bad guy out of killing them...whatever. And what if she's in love with her boss? If she can't talk eloquently enough, she'll lose everything...the grant (her job), and possibly her boss's life.

Guess she'd better get to that speech therapist, after all.

You'll notice with this last twist that it doesn't work if you just have her speaking in front of another large group--even though she may be even more jittery after failing the first time. No. You can't do the same thing a second time. You have to present a different opportunity to fail--an opportunity that is different (and preferrably more personal) than the first challenge.

What you should be picking up from this is that creating tension and that "page turner" quality is all about identifying the worst thing that could happen to a character, and making it happen. And then twisting it to make it worse.

And each of these "opportunities for magnificent failure" has to be different. If it's the same, even if it's rife with bigger-badder-ness, it's going to just feel like more of the same. These challenges must come from unexpected directions. You're looking for that "Where did that come from?" and "I didn't see that one coming" reaction from your reader.

Conversely, in order to have a successful (and happy) ending, you need to know What is the best thing that can happen to this character? What does he or she really, really want? And then figure out how to let her earn that ending.

So all you need when you sit down to write a novel are the answers to these two questions:

1. What is the worst thing that can happen to this character?
2. What is the best thing that can happen to this character?

From those, you'll be able to write a story that grips the reader and keeps her turning pages long into the night.

Sometimes in writing contests, writers get lower marks and comments like, “I couldn’t warm up to your hero or heroine.” And although there really aren’t any rules, there are a few (very few) guidelines. Over the past few years, I’ve randomly written about characterization, and this is yet another blog on that topic, albeit with a slightly different spin.


Great characters need to have well-defined motivation that the reader understands and accepts. That’s a given. But sometimes, it’s hard to get “cozy” with a character because you can’t trust the character to do the right thing. That’s not to say heroes and heroines can’t make mistakes, or poor decisions, but they have to have the right reasons. Characters must have weaknesses or they won’t be realistic, however when push comes to shove, those weaknesses can't stop them from doing the right thing.

I always think about Monk (the massively phobic TV detective in the TV show “Monk”) and Becker (the truly obnoxious doctor with the big mouth in the TV show “Becker”) when it comes to great characterization. There is no doubt that given their personalities, they are about as far from “loveable” as you can get. But the odd thing is, you do love them and care about them. Why? Because when push comes to shove, they do the right thing. They may grumble and complain about it until you want to kill them, but they will come through for you.

You can trust them.

Interestingly enough, the comedy in “Becker” mostly consists of him SAYING the wrong thing—something mean and nasty—but immediately following that up by DOING something extraordinarily kind for someone who really needs help. He is a compassionate and caring doctor, even when he spouts the most horrible, mean and nasty drivel. And Monk may be germ-phobic, but he'll go into a sewer to save someone and solve a murder.

And that's the point. The bad qualities don't get in the way of doing the right thing. And in Becker's case, actions speak much louder than words. Becker and Monk will always come through in the end, regardless of their complaints.

The rules? Now, keep in mind these are mostly for romance genres, but they are still mostly true for almost every other form of fiction. Break the rules at your peril and with full knowledge of what you are doing.

1) Heroes and heroines can never cheat on spouses. Ever. And they can't really cheat on their betrothed, either. No cheating. There are ways around this, e.g. she thought her husband was dead, etc, but if you want a hero or heroine to be sympathetic, he or she cannot cheat on his/her partner. Otherwise, you're talking literary genres that are depressing and unromantic.

2) Heroes and heroines must do the right thing. They can grumble about it.

They can moan about it. But in the end, they have to do the right thing.

3) Heroes and heroines must be smart. They can make the wrong decision, but they can't be dumb about it. We all make bad choices because few—if any—of us can see the future or have all the facts. But we think we're making the only possible, and right, decision when we make it. It sounds logical and reasonable, given the available information. The audience must agree with this, even when it turns out horribly. And it must turn out horribly for there to be a story.

4) Heroes and heroines must be willing to sacrifice themselves for others at the critical point. They must be honest and have personal integrity. If they are a crook, they must have a personal code they live by—even if that code is warped. That's why we can love a hitman—because he acts with honor within his code (i.e. he gives back the money if he fails to kill the mark, etc).

Yes—they can have faults, but the reader must know that when the chips are down, the hero and heroine will do the right thing. That makes the character worthy of the reader's trust and sympathy. If the hero or heroine fails to act with integrity, then the reader's trust is broken. The writer must then redouble his efforts to regain that trust and make the hero/heroine still sympathetic. Each time the trust is broken, it will be harder to repair, until no repair is possible.

The real key is giving the character some sort of code, regardless of how warped it is, and making that character stick to it. Think of Mel Gibson in “Payback”. He was bad. Really bad. He did some pretty horrible things and yet…two factors made us go along with him:

• We understood his motivation—after all, they betrayed and tried to kill him 
•  He had his own, consistent code of behavior. He was internally honorable to his code. 

His code was his promise to the audience that he was worthy of our attention and affection.

Personal integrity may be an outdated concept, but it's still key to good fiction.

Previously, I wrote about creating sympathetic characters, and the focus was on making sure your audience understood your characters' motivations. If your readers know why a character is doing something--even if it is something bad--they are willing to go along for the ride. Mostly.

There's another piece to this puzzle, however. In creating any character, you have to give the reader something they can like about the character. I'm avoiding the word "trait" because that doesn't carry the right connotations for me. The list of these crucial characteristics is not very broad, because the real ones--the ones that will make your readers care about the character no matter what that character does--are just a few in number. They are the ones which make you see some glimmer of the best that humanity has to offer. They are what define us as humans.

Your characters don't have to always display this quality, but they have to display it near the beginning of your book and during the worst moments in the book. They have to display it at the beginning in order to keep your readers reading, and during the darkest moment or moments because this quality shows who they are.

Characters do not need to portray every quality in this list. One is often sufficient. You don't want to end up creating a Sir Galahad who was so perfect that most readers simply couldn't stand reading about him (although I'm just referring to the popular conception of him--not the somewhat tarnished paragon of virtue in the Arthurian legends and Morte de Arthur). Nobody likes perfect people, unless said person is a villain. That's also true for physical perfection, so keep that in mind.

So what is this list of qualities?

1) Integrity. On some level, your character has to show they have some level of integrity. Even a hero who is a crook may have a code--like not ratting on their friends--and it's critical to create a situation in the beginning of the novel that shows the hero or heroine acting according to some internal code.

2) Honesty. Again, the hero/heroine doesn't have to show honesty in all situations, but there must be a line and the reader must realize the hero/heroine has a definite line they will not cross. For example, the hero could lie like a rug to most women--until he meets the heroine. Then, he starts feeling like a cad when he lies to her and gradually, he finds he can't lie at all to her, revealing an innate sense of honesty he never realized he had until he met her, blah, blah. Obviously, this is an angle that works well in romances, but it also works in other situations and other genres.

3) Decency. This one needs little or no explanation. The hero and heroine in most works (other than literary fiction or erotica) must have some sense of decency. No lusting after children, for example--which I had a hard time even writing.

4) A Sense of Duty. This is a great one--it's one of the big reasons military guys/cops/firemen/S.E.A.L.S and so on are so hot. Because they get it. They have a sense of duty. Women readers translate this internally as the type of man she can depend on, and who won't disappear on the way to pick up a loaf of bread when she's 9 months pregnant. This trait is what made Frodo in The Lord of the Rings so sympathetic, and ultimately, what let him destroy the ring and its evil.

5) Protectiveness. If your character sees a wrong being committed against someone, and tries to stop that wrong, you can guarantee that your readers will like your character.

If your hero and heroine display any one of these qualities, you will create a character the reader can trust on some level. A character the reader can sympathize with. Even if the character is otherwise a pretty bad person.

Here is a beautiful example.
In the movie Payback starring Mel Gibson, he plays Porter, and he's really not a nice guy. In fact, he's pretty much a psycho-criminal-dirtbag. He and another criminal steal $140,000, but Porter's wife conspires with his partner to steal the money and leave Porter for dead. There is a lot of violence. Porter acts pretty badly. That's basically the movie.

But you know two things about Porter: you know his wife and partner betrayed him so you feel sympathy for him at the beginning; and throughout the movie, Porter only wants his $70,000--his share. He's not greedy. He's actually got this weird streak of integrity.

This is not my favorite movie, and I don't particularly like Porter, but because of this stubborn streak of integrity that makes him actually decline to take the entire $140,000 when offered it, he gets your attention.

The script writers gave him three things to make the audience care:

• Porter is betrayed at the beginning and left for dead by his wife and partner. That helps, but you can't rely on the "I'm a victim" sympathy-vote for long. I don't recommend this for heroines unless she proves herself to be strong later because it pushes her too close to the wussy-baby heroine. However, a lot of movies use this as the initial audience grabber (think: The Punisher and a lot of Steven Segal's movies.) So once they have your attention, the writers go on to give Porter...
• Integrity. Throughout the movie, Porter constantly reiterates--he only wants his share, not the entire $140,000. He's not greedy.
• Protectiveness. Toward the end we meet a new love interest for Porter. And he gets to protect her from his...yes...his ex-partner.

So even though Porter is a dirtbag, the audience can at least root for him because he displays some of these essential qualities that we idealize. He shows some glimmers of the best we humans have to offer.

And that's how you create a sympathetic character, even out of someone who you actually don't want to meet. Particularly in a dark alley.

The ability to create sympathetic characters is a real talent, and one which I'm afraid I'm not so good at. Maybe because what other people consider sympathetic, I consider pathetic and manipulative. Unfortunately, it is the heroine and hero of your book who will ultimately sell it for you, and that is the difficulty.

Because I tend to ramble and know I will ramble, I'll let you in on another secret, right up front. In addition to the fact that selling your book depends upon how well you bring your characters to life (and not on the plot--believe it or not--unless your plot is something like the DaVinci Code), here is another consideration: the reader doesn't necessarily have to like your characters as long as they understand them.

The key is giving your readers enough of a glimpse inside the head of your characters to make them sink into the character, whether they ultimately like them or not.

I've been accused many times of creating unsympathetic characters and after careful analysis, I've realized that that phrase is not really what everyone means. What editors, agents and critique partners mean when they complain about unsympathetic characters is that you have not provided them with enough information to understand the character's emotional state and situation. They can't bond with the characters.

You can have a character who is really, really a terrible person, but you can get away with it as long as:

• You reveal the character's motivation
• The character's actions or dialogue are consistent with their personality
• The character's situation is portrayed well enough for readers to understand why the character is reacting in the way you describe

Within the first chapter of your book, and preferably within the first paragraph, you need to tell your readers who your main character is, what their immediate situation is, what their desires are, and what is stopping them from attaining their desired goal. Sure, that's a lot, but without it, you are risking manuscript rejections adorned with the phrase, "ultimately, I did not sympathize with your characters."

When I first got a rejection with the phrase "I did not sympathize with your characters" I was completely stunned. I ran to my local writing group and asked for help. They suggested showing the "good side" of the character by giving them a pet cat or some such thing. Have them caring for younger siblings or an ancient grandmother. Have the heroine be a victim of child abuse in her youth (apparently a much-loved tactic that Dean Koontz uses frequently).

Not a good suggestion.

This was terribly misguided advice on a number of levels, but unfortunately, I think others have gotten this advice because I see similarly manipulative "add-ons" in other stories. When you do something like this, instead of creating a sympathetic character, your reader just feels, well, manipulated. Lately, if I read a book where the heroine is just a drip and she's forced into a stupid situation with the hero because she's trying to take care of dear old grandma and 3 younger siblings, or she has some kind of a pet which doesn't really have any function in the story, then I feel like the author is just trying to manipulate my emotions and s/he thought I was stupid enough to fall for it.

Me--I ain't that stupid.

This method creates what I call false sympathy. It doesn't actually cause the reader to become one with the character, it just makes them feel sort of sorry for the character.

Our goal is to make the reader become one with the character. We need this, because in the course of our story, our character may say or do things which are not unsympathetic, because we all do things that show our flaws. It makes us, and our characters, human. So we can't just make our hero and heroine into "all things good and sweet" unless you want them all to be drips. We need them to do the occassional stupid/bad/not-politically-correct/flawed thing, but while they are doing it, we want the reader to submerge into the character because they understand the hero/heroine and understand why the character is acting in such a way.

You cannot accomplish this by blatant manipulation.

You can only accomplish this by letting the reader into the character's head. I have a very good friend, Charlotte Featherstone, who has totally mastered this. At the beginning of her novels, her characters are really, really flawed. I mean, they have terrible problems, including things like substance abuse which is normally something I would never sympathcize with. And yet, I love her characters, I feel so close to them and understand completely what is driving them.

She accomplishes this by sinking deeply into the heads of the hero and heroine within the first page or pages, explaining their situation, their goals, and exactly how they feel about it. She lets us into their feelings, all their frustrations, fears, hopes and dreams. Once you understand what drives them emotionally, it becomes impossible not to want to know what happens to them and how they find their heart's desire.

That's the secret. Not a pet cat or orphaned sister.

For me, because I tend to write mysteries and love characters who are more cerebral, it has been very difficult for me to portray these deep feelings, because the characters are actively trying to suppress them. I also tend to like and write characters who are not politically correct and who like to say things that could get misinterpreted. That's where it is even more important to give your reader the information they need to understand the character's situation and feelings. Particularly what is driving them.

One flaw I feel victim to when writing mysteries, is the notion that I wanted to hold back information about the characters situations and feelings to let them be gradually revealed and surprise the reader. The surprise was that the reader never got far enough into the book to care if I revealed the hero's motivation and background on page 87.

You can't do a background dump on page one, but you have to establish who the characters are, what they are feeling and why they are feeling it. If there is some tragedy in their past, you have to describe it in some form or fashion that will form a plausible basis for how the character is acting now. You don't have to reveal everything, but you do have to reveal enough to establish the situation.

Back to unsympathetic characters and not revealing enough about their emotional state.

I had one character, John Archer, who would say things to his grown nieces such as, "Don't be absurd, you silly child." This was meant in a gently mocking, teasing, kidding sort of way. In fact, a lot of my own relatives say things like that to each other (and worse) and it gives me warm fuzzies when they do. It makes me laugh. I love it when people do that mock insulting thing, because it means they are comfortable enough with you to know: you can take it, you can dish it out, and you aren't going to burst into tears. Let's face it, you're only completely polite to people you hate. So, I know they aren't really mad and don't really think I'm either immature, absurd, or silly--or maybe I have actually done or said something that is, but I know they are just teasing me about it. If they were seriously angry with me or trying to really ridicule me, the entire tone would change, and so would the wording.

Sidebar: I guess it's not politically correct to tease anyone any more, which makes me very sad. I keep having this pointed out to me as a terrible flaw in me and my characters. :-(

Anyway, tone is really hard to write. So although I wrote John saying that phrase, almost all the people who read it thought he was this terribly mean person and why would he suddenly say such a terrible thing to his niece to whom he has previously been so nice. They totally did NOT get this. So you either have to hit the reader over the head with it by saying something such as:

"Don't be absurd, you silly child," John said in a teasing voice.

Or risk having 90% of your readers sit back, aghast, at how your previously nice character suddenly turned mean to his nieces. The key is to let your reader know how the character means it. One would hope you would not have to hit them over the head with a sledgehammer to make them understand, but perhaps you do. Perhaps I think readers are smarter than that and perhaps they are not.

Still, I'd like to think a few out there get it and aren't insulted by it when they do get it.

Whatever.

So think about it when you write your characters. Don't make them perfect, just make them understandable.