character biographies/understanding my anti-hero

[henriette]

ok, i'm just going to jump in feet first, spill my guts out and hope someone can give me some good advice for this problem i'm having.

i'm currently writing a historical novel set in france in 1835. the basic outline of the story is this: young parisian wife (1st person POV) inherits her childhood home in the country, intends on spending the summer there. the husband invites his cousins from italy to visit as they are on their way to paris.

the cousins arrive- miz. s & mr. t. miz s. is in her twenties, an artist. mr. t is barely 20, a musician/student. he falls desperately in love with the young wife as they share a secret from his childhood that she is not quite aware of...the young wife tries to discourage him, but there's something about him that disturbs and titilates her. mr. t is an anti-hero- he will eventually try to destroy her life and everything she knows because of this mad obsession. the outcome must be victorious for our young wife- how this will happen is what i still need to figure out, but i'm not too worried about that, i have some possibilities lined up.

my problem is this. because the novel is written in 1st person POV it's difficult to get into the mind of my anti-hero to plant clues in his dialogue as to what his true intentions are (dark, sexually obsessive, murderous- the usual). to try to delve deeper i've started to write character biographies (date of birth, big moments in childhood, names of parents etcetc) but now i'm drawing a huge blank. when i'm writing the action of the story, it's flowing. but now that i need to dig deeper into the minds of my characters, i'm finding myself staring at a blank page and wondering what the hell has happened to my inspiration!

any thoughts, advice or kicks in the rear would be much appreciated :)

[RumBucuresti]

have the woman read his letters? meet one of his friends? if he is a music student have him be a student of whatever was 1835's most sensual/rock n roll music style.

[henriette]

yes he has most definitely been sneaking racy letters to her in bouquets and other clandestine ways. he has freaked her out with his intense piano playing and has riled her up with his strange comments that evokes a precious memory in her. he is young, brash, sensual, insouciant, romantic and as she eventually finds out, a terror. i can see him through her eyes with 20/20 vision- it's getting right into his head that is the issue. argh.

ps- 1835 rock n roll is pretty funny- it reminds me of that 80s video "rock me amadeus"

[trebuchet]

Here's an example I like.
C.S. Friedman has a whale of an antihero in her Coldfire series (SF/F). His name is Gerald Tarrant, and he is, well, demonic. Although the novels are not in first person, Tarrant is viewed from the outside by the protagonist. Only on limited occasions does Friedman enter his POV and those times are generally setting and dialog when the protag isn't around. She reveals his motivations and his conflicts mainly by the things he says, by the things he does, by his body language, mannerisms and quirks, by what others say about him, and by how they perceive him. By the consequences of his ostensibly self-serving actions.
Consider this: How I wanted to get inside his head! How the satisfaction of piecing together what his thoughts and feelings might be were what kept me reading.

[Mike Coombes]

I have a query on the historical angle. In 1835 in England, women couldn't inherit property - which is why it was so important to marry the right man. Are you sure this wasn't the same in France?

[scarletpeaches]

Women could inherit at that time, so I believe, as the Salic Law has never been enforced in England. In 1835, though, everything they owned became their husband's on marrying and should the marriage break up, he kept the lot. But don't quote me on exact details as I'm not English; I'm a Scot.

[Cathy C]

Since I also write 1st Person POV, I strongly recommend that you choose a particular chapter where they interact, and then write the same chapter from HIS POV. Yes, the whole thing. No, you can't use it in the book, but you'll get a much better depth into the wording that he would use. He would be teasing, tempting --- TRYING to tempt her. But he has to react to her reactions. He's the anti-hero, so it's a chess match. They both expect to win, but the best tension is when he gets the best of her verbally, forcing her to give visual clues that he's winning; keeping her off-balance.

Give it a try. I think you'll find that it will be easier after that.

[TheIT]

Perhaps it would help if you wrote the scenes which are troubling you from your anti-hero's perspective as practice, then rewrite the scene from your POV character's perspective for the actual story. If you're having difficulty portraying what he's doing, try being him so you know what he's doing and why. Once you understand his goals, it should hopefully give you enough information to sprinkle hints through the story to clue the reader in. Or act out the scene in your head from his POV, and then from hers.

I've got a similar situation. I've already decided I cannot use one particular character as a POV character because delving inside his head would destroy the sense of mystery surrounding him, so I need to portray what he's thinking/feeling/doing from other people's comments and descriptions. Both my POV characters look at him and see completely different motivations. Neither are quite correct, but neither are quite wrong (and he's not telling).

An example would be Sherlock Holmes. We learn a great deal about him from Watson writing about his exploits and his friendship. The one story which falls flat for me is the one where Holmes himself is the POV character. Where's the fun in figuring out what he's going to do if he tells us everything?

EDIT: Looks like Cathy C already beat me to the punch (great minds think alike?), but I'll add my 2 cents as well.

[henriette]

thank you all for the great advice. i will most definitely try to write some of their pivotal scenes in his POV- i think that would be the best option for me. yay!

note on women inheriting property- i am definitely aware of the inability of women to inherit in england. i've been doing research on the napoleonic code which was the standard of law at the time in france, so far i have not found anything that expressly states that women can NOT own property in france. i am hoping to get in touch with a french historian for some less complicated answers.

http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/society/c_women.html

here is a quote from this source:

The Code introduces the idea of Community. This was the joint pool of assets and liabilities in a marriage. The Code explains what was to be included in the pool and what was excluded by law. The wife's dowry was included but her "paraphernalia" was not. The term is not defined in the Code but using Napoléon's intended means of interpretation, ie. the use of logic and deduction from other sections, one can assume that it meant little more than her trinkets. married women could not make a donation during their lifetime without the assistance or special consent of the husband or being authorized by law.

The husband had the power and management of all of the property in community. One may say that in this way, the system was no different to the old regime. However, the husband could not alienate or pledge the immovables and could only exchange immovables with the consent of the wife and had to account to her like an agent or usufructuary in relation to her assets in the community.