when your main character is too much "you"

How I handle it: I only have 1 beta reader, a person I trust completely, for the very experience you stated. I'm sorry but I just don't trust many people's motives when it comes to "criticism." Experience has taught me that most "critics" either very much enjoy tearing you down, or have not been trained to offer constructive criticism. Helpful ideas, suggestions, and opinions are always welcomed. Personal attacks and tearing my work to shreds? Smells like a jealousy issue to me.

Saying "your MC sucks" is not the same as saying "I'd like to see her a bit stronger in certain areas because too many weaknesses maker her annoying, rather than endearing."

Recently, I revised my original ending to include a heartfelt, deep confession of sorts. My beta reader said it just didn't fit. I realized I had vented in the MS my own guilt over something happening in my life. So I removed all that newly added boo-hoo guilt and it was much better without it. That's what I call constructive.

As for agent/publisher rejection, I quote a line from the Godfather: "[SIZE=-1]It's not personal, Sonny. It's strictly business." That type of rejection doesn't bother me in the least. To me, agent/publisher rejection means "I can't see myself making money."
[/SIZE]

I am so glad I saw this thread. I'm in a bit of a crisis with my MC. Recently, I read something about how writers have a tendency to be very connected psychologically/emmotionaly to their characters, especially their MC. That thought sent me fretting about my first two stories that I have in limbo at the moment. Both are locked in my crashed computer and I'm hoping my computer tech can retrieve them for me. The only CD backup is lost and the only hard copy (of one) is in another state being read by my brother.

While waiting for the liberation of my two stories, I've been mulling over the dynamics written up to this point in time. One story I believe is less me and more to the crisis/question of the story. But, the other story is profoundly about me and I'm just now realizing how much that it is. I've even begun wondering if, for my own sake, I should not write the story. It began as a blank page. As the story was being written, I was as much the audience as the author. It felt as though my subconscious was revealing something not consciously realized. I believe the story is not even interesting to anyone else, at least I don't see how it could be. For me, it's intimidating. I feel like the person who doesn't want to see herself in a mirror. The longer I go without retrieving my story, the more of a comfortable distance I gain. Yet, there's a gnawing feeling that I must write the story regardless of it's impact on me or anyone else.

I feel like I need to start a new story but it's bugging me SO BAD that I have two hanging, it's almost paralyzing.

Now, I want to go into scream therapy.

kid

I personally believe you will not go wrong putting something of yourself into your characters. Not just the main character, but all of them. It's those little things that makes them real. It could be an expression they use, little quirks, likes/dislikes--whatever sets them apart from each other. But if you insert yourself into your characters in some way, then you have a better feel for who they are, what they're about. I have found it is hard to write about something I know nothing about. Our life experiences are what make us who we are as people. Our characters should have the same basis to make them real. If you treat them as real, then the reader will as well.

Regarding the critique you've received about your MC, try not to take it too hard. As a writer, you are going to get a lot of feedback, some of it good, some of it hard. That is just how it is. As a writer, you are bearing your soul to the whole world. If you think about it, it is quite an vulnerable endeavor. If the person offering negative feedback is telling you something you need to hear as a writer, then thank them for their critique. The only way you are going to improve as a writer is when you are told about those areas that need to improve. Use that information and learn from it. If the person giving your negative feedback is way off base, then just ignore it and move on. I'll give you an example that I recently experienced. My first novel is coming out in February. I sent it to a number of authors, hoping for postive reviews I could post on my website, and possibly the book cover. It is a Science Fiction story set 200 years in the future. One of the authors hated what I wrote. Not because it was badly written. He didn't like my story because I included references that were based on modern day experiences--things like shaving, elevators, and push-button consols. He felt that 200 years from now, we wouldn't have those things. I thought he was being awfully particular, arbitrary, and I figured it was best if we agreed to disagree about the elements in my story. Other people, however, liked what I've written, and have given me some very positive reviews. You just have to decide if those things that person wrote about your MC are worth changing the story or not.

Mike

Scrawler said:

Saying "your MC sucks" is not the same as saying "I'd like to see her a bit stronger in certain areas because too many weaknesses maker her annoying, rather than endearing."

Recently, I revised my original ending to include a heartfelt, deep confession of sorts. My beta reader said it just didn't fit. I realized I had vented in the MS my own guilt over something happening in my life. So I removed all that newly added boo-hoo guilt and it was much better without it. That's what I call constructive.

Click to expand...

I agree. The person probably couldn't relate to the character because all they saw were her weaknesses, and maybe that distracted them from some of the good qualities your novel has to offer.

You could always change the character a bit, distance yourself from her, to be able to evaluate the whole thing more objectively.

Bealeblast said:

my strong reaction had to do with the fact that I'd put enough pieces of myself into this main character that I felt ripped apart personally.

Click to expand...

Writers really get attached to their characters. I know I do. Try to remember that your critic was discussing your fictional character and not you (although it sounds like he/she might need to be a little gentler with his/her comments!)

I wrote an MC that I thought was so much like me that I couldn't bear to have anyone I know read the piece. Later (much, much later) when I let my husband read it, he never said a thing about any resemblance. And when I re-read the story, I didn't see myself in it anymore either.

What the critique says to me is that the depth you feel for your characters isn't on the page.

Another related problem I see in the slush is where a character appears to be character A in the beginning and character B at the end -- and not because they changed. Writers are often not fully aware how the character is written from the beginning of the mss. to a given point in the mss. Instead, the writer sometimes thinks of the whole character, which isn't what's on the page.

I had a critiquer ask what a female character saw in one of my male characters recently. I'd thought about it the other way -- and that was obvious to me -- but the reverse wasn't. Unfortunately, the reader couldn't figure it out either.

I guess I'm weird. I may start out with one of the MC's having some characteristics of mine, but soon into the writing, they take on a whole new personality totally separate from mine. They don't do what I tell them to and they become totally unpredictable.

Even weirder, my female MC's aren't much of me at all, maybe one has my temper, or my stubborn streak, or my off the wall humor, but mostly they are completely separate from me. I actually am usually closer in personality to the male MC's I create. I know, I'm so strange. Though I certainly share similarities with my characters, I think they are usually people who I'd want to be, not who I am. Of course, that is mainly because I am not interesting enough or deserving enough to be a main character. . .Some writers are.

Scrawler said:

Saying "your MC sucks" is not the same as saying "I'd like to see her a bit stronger in certain areas because too many weaknesses maker her annoying, rather than endearing."

Click to expand...

The challenge is that while all readers can tell what they don't like, not everyone has the ability or skills to know why they don't or what might help. Actually, I'd venture the guess that 80% of my betas haven't a clue, which is fine.

Getting their gut response is what I really want. After that, it's dialogue with them to discover more details, not just sitting down with their comments and trying to puzzle it out alone. What scene started turning their affections away or was it immediate upon introduction or even before? What part of the scene--can we pin down the very sentence? Get as many specifics as you can from the readers in discussion and then sit down with your ms to figure out what happened and how to fix it.

A member of an group I once belonged to told the story one meeting of how her editor had come back absolutely HATING the hero. Despised him so much, the editor wanted her to rewrite the book and completely change his character. Upon questioning, the author pinned down the section of one scene that the editor changed her opinion of him in. In examining the scene, the author discovered that it boiled down to one misused word. She changed it, send the ms back. The editor came back, absolutely adoring the hero, thinking he was the best thing ever written.

The only difference is your two quotes, to me, is that one beta is a writer and the other is a reader and they're both valuable commentary--one's just a little more effort to polish than the other. So it's possible that it's really not the slam it felt like because it could just be a little messed up prose--and that's an easy fix.

storygirl said:

I actually am usually closer in personality to the male MC's I create.

Click to expand...

Lol. I thought I was the only one. I'm not sure why, but in general I find that my male MC's are more interesting than the the females. They always seem to get the better lines, etc. Maybe I need a little more masculine female hero (thinking of Xena here).

Mmmm, Xena.

We all put a chunk of us in our characters, and we draw from other people as well. It's nearly impossible to build a character cold without some reference to what we've observed in life. Many writers suggest keeping a file (computer, paper, mental - whatever works) of character traits that strike you to use for your characters. I always jot down bits of dialogue, eating habits, walks, where someone stands in a crowded fast food joint, anything that I see on a regular basis taht I can add to my gang and make them appear real. And of course there's my quirks and bad habits to make it fun.

Pike

I haven't yet seen this mentioned, so I think it bears noting. There's a big difference between putting pieces of yourself into a character (consciously or subconsciously) and creating a Mary Sue character, who is essentially a idealization of the author.

Here's a more detailed explanation of Mary Sue characters and why they tend to weaken a story (you can google "Mary Sue" for more info too):

http://www.subreality.com/marysue/explain.htm

Bealeblast--If your MC is a Mary Sue, then you might need to consider making revisions to address some of those characteristics that received criticism, address the criticisms that hit you the hardest, and see if you can make her less like you. Even if she's not a Mary Sue, you might consider weaving in a backstory that explains her weaknesses and makes her a more sympathetic character.

It's natural and appropriate to put some of ourselves into our characters, but the characters still have to live apart from us, be well-developed characters in their own right. They have to own their behavior.

storygirl said:

I guess I'm weird. I may start out with one of the MC's having some characteristics of mine, but soon into the writing, they take on a whole new personality totally separate from mine. They don't do what I tell them to and they become totally unpredictable.

Click to expand...

Not weird at all. Mine often springboard off of some aspect of myself. Sometimes I start with the question, "What kind of person would I be if I'd made this choice instead?"

One of my characters in my first novel was very shy and introverted and naive, even though she held an advanced degree. And then she suffered a brutal assault, which left her very un-trusting of anyone, especially men.

*I* understood her completely (in some ways she was like I was when I was younger) and she was ripped to shreds by many critiquers in my crit group. Nobody *got* her or understood her motivations.

That's the novel that sits under the bed. I'm not sure I can write this particular character so people get her or want to root for her.

C'est la vie.

qdsb said:

There's a big difference between putting pieces of yourself into a character (consciously or subconsciously) and creating a Mary Sue character, who is essentially a idealization of the author.

Click to expand...

That's a great link! I've never heard of this term before, but I appreciate knowing about it. The only problem I have with it is, when it gets right down to it, isn't lamost every character with whom the reader (or writer) strongly identifies a Mary Sue?

No, not every character with whom a reader/writer strongly identifies is a Mary Sue. The Mary Sue is the too-perfect one, the one who is so put-upon, so misunderstood, and yet so good/smart/noble/sexy/funny, all the time. The Mary Sue either has no faults or just one, which is carefully chosen and over-explained and easily overcome.

You can have a very good wish-fulfillment character who is not a Mary Sue (or the male counterpart, Gary Stu.) For instance, take Harry Potter: He turns out to be the chosen one around whom the fate of the entire Wizarding World revolves, which can head seriously into Gary Stu territory. But JK Rowling made Harry believably ordinary (he is clever but not academic, clueless about girls, petty in some of his childhood arguments, not particularly tall, etc.), gave him a variety of friends and relationships, made his adversaries and naysayers realistic individuals, and fit him into a larger universe. So Harry avoids the Gary Stu label.

To get back to the main topic, investing too much of yourself in a character -- I almost don't think that can be done. But I think you can invest too much of yourself in only ONE character in your story. I really believe the trick is to put part of yourself in virtually every character you write, including the baddies, the love interests, the comic relief, anyone, everyone if you can manage it. If you care about them all, and invest in them all, you will find balance in the novel, IMHO.

Thanks for the clarification on the Mary Sue character! It makes a lot of sense and is something for me to think about.