Do you do what's best for your characters?

[Coco82]

This is just a general question. Do you take yuor characters' well-being into consideration when writng?

[Euan H.]

Yes. I generally try to work out what would be the worst possible thing to happen to that character--and then I make it happen to them. Being nasty to your characters makes for more interesting (IMHO) fiction.

[Coco82]

Generally, I feel my characters can only take somuch at a time. I like to spread the wealth LOL.

[CACTUSWENDY]

:Shrug: Yeah...if he is good.....he is really good....and if it's one of my bad guys...wooowooo....then he is really bad.....:whip:

This is just my opinion, but for a book bad guy to be bad....you have to get into his brain a bit....and let it all kind of flop out for all to see....
but the good guys...i think because i am such a nice person...it is hard for me to be bad.....i think everyone is nice.....so i don't get into how good he is....like i do the bad guy....because i am not a bad person....
(If you believe that bit about me being nice....i got some beach front property in Arizona to sell ya....cheap.....):roll:

gosh i love you guys........(I'll never get to 50...sigh) :Cheer:

[maestrowork]

When he's good, he's good. When he's bad, he's better.

[CACTUSWENDY]

:Clap:


wonder if he could be badder.......????.....don't ever want him to be better......:eek: it is the females that are better when they be badder......wooowooo...........(huh?)

:Lecture:

P.S....eraser......CONGRAGES....ON YOUR OVER 50......

:PartySmil :PartySmil :PartySmil :PartySmil

[Mistook]

Somehow, I sense there is a giant party going on in the mind of Cactus Wendy? You go girl! :)

[Mistook]

As for the "well being" of characters, I'm not exactly sure what that means.


All my characters have their own, sort of, 'list of priorities' that they live by. The goodness or badness of any character has to do with that. The best (or most good) characters still have their blind spots, their vices, and their selfish flaws. The worst (most bad) characters have their redeeming qualities.

I guess I would say, in my writing, the bad guys always say they're doing things to help others, or society. They always have a complex argument for why their actions are good, but in the last analysis, they're shown to be selfish, or cruel, or cowardly.

meanwhile, the good guys always apologize for their failings. They strive to hide or find sympathy for their flaws. They try to be selfish and cowardly, but when the s**t hits the fan, they find they're brave, self-sacrificing, empathetic, and/or patient.

I guess in a nutshell, the baddies are the ones most obsessed with their own well-being, while the goodies worry about the well-being of other characters.

[Birol]

Depends, what do you mean by taking their well-being into account? Do they survive? Usually. Especially the main characters. Until The End, anyway. The secondary characters aren't always that lucky. They have a nasty habit of dying in my current WIP. And the main characters have endured some great emotional trauma. It's what makes them interesting to write about.

[pianoman5]

The nasty thing about life (or at least one of them) is that not everyone gets what they deserve.

Murderous despots like Idi Amin and Pol Pot get to die peacefully in their beds as old men, while innocent children are taken from us by the likes of war, famine, AIDS, and leukaemia.

Perhaps the most redeeming quality of fiction, aside from its entertainment value, is that characters largely do get what they deserve. There'll be pitfalls for the good guys of course, but they (almost) always win through. The cackling villain may have his triumphs along the way, but he always gets his in the end. That's what the punters want.

Such is the sustaining power of myth. It gives us hope - the illusion that life, at base, is fair; and as writers, we are its guardians and principal proponents.

When we're writing, I guess most of feel at least empathy for our 'good' characters, and are looking for the opportunity to p**s on the bad guys. But it's important to make sure that we only 'look after' our characters to the extent they deserve it, according to the light we've drawn them in, and try to remove our own sentiment when we're dealing them the breaks.

But as a hopeless old moist-eyed cartoon watcher, I often find it tough.

[Fresie]

One of the best books on writing I've ever read was The Courage to Write: How Writers Transcend Fear by Ralph Keyes and the best thing he says there is that the writer should be as sadistic as possible to his characters. :) Of all possible things to happen to them, he should always choose the worst trouble -- and the one that scares him, the writer, most. Maybe that's not what's good for your character, but that's what's good for your reader, sure!

It's so funny, yesterday I was watching (listening to?) The Magic Flute on TV and for the first time I noticed how ridiculously weak the plot was... why? because everybody was so virtuous and everybody was getting what was best for them. The heroes' troubles finished before they even had a chance to feel anything. Poor Mozart, working with a story like that.:Clap:

Nah -- I make'em suffer!

[Writing Again]

Writing is life with all the boring parts taken out.

Good writing is life with lots of interesting parts put in.

[James D. Macdonald]

You do what's most interesting for your readers.

Writing is about a lot of things, but being kind to your characters isn't one of them.

[victoriastrauss]

This is just a general question. Do you take yuor characters' well-being into consideration when writng?
I consider the story's well-being. If that requires the characters to suffer, then so be it.

As a writer, I'm always pulled toward the unhappiest chance and the saddest conclusion. As a reader, I love books that have happy endings. Go figure.

- Victoria

[katdad]

No, I don't put the better welfare of the characters ahead of any story needs.

There are however some characters who are genuinely "good" and I may not visit too much desolation upon them. This is not especially from benevolent motives, but from the need to maintain coherence in my books.

These are realistic mystery novels set in present-day Houston, so I must contain and control the occurrences to a degree, in order to maintain verisimilitude.

[johnnycannuk]

I agree with Victoria, kdatdad and Uncle Jim.

The character is there to serve and further the story. Sometimes this means putting a character into a situation that is a direct threat to their well being, in order to create the requisite conflict and action - that is what the story is all about.

Sometimes the the charater puts themselves there because of some "fatal flaw". Sometimes disregarding the well being of one character helps move the story forward for another character.

The possibilities are endless. I do think a story is more interesting when you actually disregard whats 'best' for your character...

BTW, to ensure we are all on the same page, can you define 'best'? I mean, it might be 'best' that the villian gets her comeupence but it might be better for the story if they don't....just yet.


Mike

[JanaLanier]

If one of the goals of writing fiction is for every scene to have tension (per Sol Stein in Stein on Writing), then you should make things as difficult for your character as you can. Stein even suggests that if your character has a problem, don't resolve it right away. Stretch it out to add tension to the story.

[Puddle Jumper]

I actually find it complicated to write my characters making mistakes. I find it easy to put my characters into hard or bad situation and have them respond naturally. But for actually making mistakes, I find that more difficult to do even though I think it's essential to give the story credibility and a sense of realism since no one is perfect.

[Mya Bell]

I try to let the setting, the plot, and the characters' individual personalities determine what happens to them.

Sometimes what happens isn't very nice--not nice at all. In fact, it may be super dastardly, but hey, they get themselves into these scrapes. My job, as a writer is to rescue them. Sometimes that's hard. Sometimes it doesn't work--some holes are just too deep--but that's what makes a story interesting.

--- Mya Bell

[Kasey Mackenzie]

You do what's most interesting for your readers.

Writing is about a lot of things, but being kind to your characters isn't one of them.

I couldn't have said this better myself and I agree wholeheartedly! I'm a sucker for "happy" (or at least, happyish) endings but up until that actual point I torture my characters like heck as the story calls for it.

[three seven]

I'm not a great lover of Hollywood endings, and tend to avoid them like the plague.
HOWEVER if your characters are going to have a happy ending, it's so much sweeter if they've have had to go through the mill to get there.

I'd like to say I let the story runs its course, the chips fall where they may etc, but I'd be lying. I have to confess to the odd contrivance just to make sure they really go through some sh*t.

[JohnLynch]

If I'm God, my characters would worship Satan ;) Because I give them no reason to love me :D

James likes to say "Put interesting characters in interesting places." Well I'm just learning how to write, but I have always put my characters in bad situations. Because it gives them an incentive to get out of the situation they're in.

So no, my character's welfare isn't even on the bottom of the list of things I consider when writing a story ;) I'm following James' advice and I write until the "so let's go get pizza?" point. Often that means the bad situation has been resolved, either for better or worse.

[allion]

...from a documentary about Las Vegas:

"Nothing happens without action."

I've always kept that in mind. For most stories, you need conflict to keep things moving, or you can get the dreaded navel gazing happening.

Another quote I remember from a writing book (this may be a paraphrase - I don't have the book near me right now):

"Take your readers where they don't want to go."

For me, when the writing seems to be sloggy, I give the characters a problem to keep them busy. Things brighten up well after that.

[fallenangelwriter]

for the main body of the story, i think a fair amount of suffering is necessary for the characters. As for the end, happy or sad endings can work, but i think that the bittersweet ending is the most successful overall. I try to make sure to add a ray of light to the darkest hour, and add a tinge of sorrow to the heroe's triumph.

okay, i lied. that's what I would do if i were paying attention, but in fact the endings just pop into my head. I seemt o tend toward the darker side, but not excessively so. one way i've found I unconscously mix sadness and joy is by making the end mean different things to different people. one story ends with the protagonist realizing her true calling, but everyone else looks on her as a failure.

[Mistook]

I put my characters into rough situations where they have to get themselves out, but save them sometimes. I mean it happens in life. People do get saved.

I did have one character who I liked, but who kinda let me down. He made a few bad decisions and I realized he was cracking under pressure. I had him go nuts, and then somebody came along and shot him in the head. It worked out well for me. It really threw the story into a higher gear and pushed the plot forward.

As for endings. That's why I like having three or four good leads heading a few different sub-plots. I can end it sad for one, happy for another, and put a big twist on another.

[arrowqueen]

Nope. I'll cheerfully shove 'em off a cliff if the notion takes me.

:ROFL:
aq

[BradyH1861]

Nope. I'll cheerfully shove 'em off a cliff if the notion takes me.

:ROFL:
aq

Glad I'm not one of your characters! Or am I......

Brady H.

[azbikergirl]

What doesn't kill them makes them stronger. Or neurotic. :roll:

In my current novel, my character wants to avoid something (rather than attain something), but in the end he has to accept it. It's a happy ending for the reader because by then, the reader (hopefully) wants him to have it. I like characters who make sacrifices for the good of whatever cause they're working toward, even if it makes them miserable.

[Lenora Rose]

I actually find it complicated to write my characters making mistakes. I find it easy to put my characters into hard or bad situation and have them respond naturally. But for actually making mistakes, I find that more difficult to do even though I think it's essential to give the story credibility and a sense of realism since no one is perfect.

Puddle Jumper, Wouldn't having your character respond naturally lead to them making their own (Natural) mistakes?

You shouldn't have to force mistakes on a vivid character. You'll look at what they're doing and think, "I know this is the smart thing to do, but this guy is a 15 year old who's lived a fairly sheltered life, and he's too enthusiastic to slow down and think consequences. And she won't stop him, because she trusts him and assumes he has thought about it."

LRH

[kdfrawg]

Wow, I almost wish I could do that. My characters have a tendency to do pretty much what they want to do. I somehow know them very well (I assume that's magic of some kind) but only they decide what they will do. I suppose that I am seeing it inside out and that really all that stuff is coming out of my head, from personal and other experiences, but I don't really think so.

Every one of my characters quotes the words of Popeye: "I yam what I yam." And as a result, they do what they do.