Characters with Nothing to Love\Hate About Them

Because they don't want to waste story space delving into the redeemable traits of every last character, especially the side-characters.

When you develop a character who doesn't advance the story,it loses me every time.

Sometimes it's just poor writing. Even published authors do a lot of things wrong.

Other times, it's a deliberate choice. Like LOG said, side characters and characters who don't impact the plot that much can often be described very simply.

Ditto to all above. When it comes to major characters, though, there should always be something.

A lot of people give their villains a sense of humour, I've noticed, along with other redeeming qualities. It seems to me that it's far easier to humanize a villain a bit than to corrupt a protagonist, which is why we see so many Mary Sues and it's so easy for them to slip into our writing under our noses.

3D villains are something I find very fun to explore and get to know, though often heartbreaking.

It's good to notice things like this when reading, so you can make a resolution to avoid doing the same in your own writing.

-Derek

I think it's part of the formula. I'm going to express a bit of bias and all of this is based on observation and nothing concrete, so take it with a grain of salt or two.

This is more obvious in certain genres, btw (movies and manga for instance). There are a lot of formulaic works out there. Stories with essentially the same characters and the same plot that don't make you think that (after you've seen enough of them) you can predict everything within about five pages. And thing is, formula still sells. I'm not implying that it's in and of itself a bad thing (hey, I enjoy House even though every episode is the exact same). It provides a certain type of escapism that a lot of people enjoy. Also, a lot of people simply aren't exposed enough to recognize the formulas involved (or don't think things through critically enough to catch them).

Most of the time when I see a character like this, they're pure formula. You know exactly who to like and who to hate, and that makes it easy. You know who to root for. There is no real depth involved either in the characters themselves, or in the choices said characters have to make.

Personally, I tend to admire a work that can show a villain who isn't necessarily wrong, or who has some kind of redeeming quality or a background that makes you understand them. They give depth to the character, and once you have that depth the story explodes as well. Suddenly there is the possibility that maybe the characters won't do the obvious easy thing. Maybe they'll take a different route, etc.

I'm not sure why writers write formula. Some may not realize they do. Some may realize that formula does sell and so they follow the money. Maybe some just enjoy reading that sort of book and therefore write them as well (I've certainly enjoyed a few in my day).

As for protagonists, there's always the Mary Sue, who does manage to seep into published works fairly often. It drives me crazy when a character has no flaws and is just perfect in every way. No one is really like that.

There's always the possibility that the author just didn't realize it. We usually know a lot more about our characters than we actual put into the story. To us, they have faults and virtues, but the reader never gets to see them. We also talk about those things with our crit groups and editors, so the info is "there" even if it never makes it onto the page.

Question: What audience was the author aiming at? Early readers may not understand characters who are too complex. They need their Snow Whites and Evil Witches. Even teens enjoy black and white characters. Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader. (I know old Darth eventually came around to the good side, but even then, the change was complete, he was no longer the bad guy).

It's mostly readership. Books for the young usually don't have very much in the way of character development, other than redemption and lesson learned. There's nothing wrong with this.

All-good or all-bad characters appeal to some of us always, and to all of us sometimes. We don't necessarily want to know the inner workings of Cinderella's stepmother, her good points, her emotional problems.

Punishing a villain is only satisfying if you don't like anything about the villain and don't feel sorry for them. If the climax of your plot is killing the bad guy, it works best if he's 100% bad (and thus inarguably needs to be killed to protect everyone else).

LOG said:

Because they don't want to waste story space delving into the redeemable traits of every last character, especially the side-characters.

Click to expand...

Probably. But every character must have something to give them a bit of depth. In The First Vial I made the priest pretty much all bad, which he was. My editor told me I needed something to temper his badness so I created a plausible reason for part of his rotten character. It didn't change who he was or what he did but it gave a small glimpse inside his own reasoning. Personally I think characters who have more than a brief walk-on part should have a bit of development, otherwise they add little to the texture of the whole story.

bonitakale said:

All-good or all-bad characters appeal to some of us always, and to all of us sometimes. We don't necessarily want to know the inner workings of Cinderella's stepmother, her good points, her emotional problems.

Click to expand...

I do.

But I probably don't represent the typical youth readership.