One thing that I have noticed in fantasy stories regarding the appearances of the characters is often how perfect they are. They may have perfectly straight teeth that look like they were made of pearls, the women often have long silky hair that gleams in the sunlight, or the females may often have a scent about them (like in "Inheritance Cycle" where Arya constantly smells of pine- at least, I believe it is pine needles. I haven't read the series in a while, so you'll have to forgive me). Normally this is not an issue considering our modern day and age where hygiene is very important, but this becomes a problem if your setting is in a Medieval-esque world or in an earlier time period.
Let me put it this way: hygiene did not become a major issue until about a hundred years ago. Unless you were Japanese, who were a very clean people, you did not take a bath that often, and, if you did, it only happened every month or so. For this reason, people wore lots of perfume and makeup to cover up their dirtiness. It was particularly worse in more rural regions where farmers and such were constantly working, and so they would come home covered in mud and who knows what. In these more rural areas, you not bathe very frequently and then, it was most likely only before attending important events. This form of hygiene would probably make us retch if we lived during those times, but keep in mind that no one else noticed the smell or your dirtiness that much unless you move from one area to another or between different cultures.
Not only were people dirty, but they were not concerned with their hair very much either. Soap was not common, and conditioner and hair dryers had not yet been invented yet. Not to mention the lice and other living things that could live in one's hair, especially a woman's. And women, unless they were more of the barbaric stock, probably ran a comb through their hair in the morning and put it up for the rest of the day. So, one would imagine that their hair was very unkempt and greasy from lack of washing.
And now, on to teeth. Dentists and orthodontists did not exist back then, and people did not brush their teeth. So finding someone with perfectly straight white teeth was probably a diamond in the rough and very rare.
My point in saying this is that most stories today, ones that are set in pre-modern eras, tend to have some character that has excellent hygiene along the lines of what we would see today. Your story may be a Medieval fantasy, but keep in mind that appearances back then were very different. You're not going to see perfect people in their appearances or in regards to hygiene. Particularly if your story has a lot of traveling in it, I doubt people in the traveling party are going to look well-groomed for very long. This may seem something odd to talk about writing, but I believe it is the details which can often make your world seem more real and down-to earth, no matter what genre or time period it is set in.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Book Series
It is quite common nowadays particularly for fantasy writers to plan more than one book to tell their story. While there is nothing inherently wrong with this (I may have another post to talk about this later), problems can arise if you plan the whole series, write and publish the first book, and then finish the series one book at a time.
One problem is consistency. In the early life of your story, you are not going to think up entire situations, back stories, or whatnot until some time later. If you write and publish only one book at a time, while continuing the story, you may discover some secret history between two of the characters or some new side plot that would make the story... except the problem is that the previous book as been published and cannot be altered. So thus you are forced to introduce something new rather suddenly and which could require character personalities or histories to be changed, but which cannot be altered drastically without coming across as inconsistent. I have seen this myself as my own work in progress has changed over the three and one-half years of its existence where the story largely remains the same but where characters and back stories evolve into something originally different.
A related issue is a greater amount of world-building that will inevitably take place the further you go into a story. It depends on the author, but you may develop more of the history, the languages, or an endless list of side aspects to the story; if you use magic in the story, you may deepen it and expand the rules. However, if you write-publish one book at a time, you will run into further problems of consistency. An example would be Christopher Paolini's "Inheritance Cycle". Because the books were all written at different times (in other words, he planned out the series but wrote each book one at a time), his explanation for magic and related magical events are different for each book, and thus his magic does not make sense at all.
Another problem of writing one book at a time is you may lose steam. I myself have gone through the stage of fantasy writing where I write one book and plan for others but by the time I finish at least the first part of the story, I have to put an end to the series for whatever reason there is, whether it be because of a bizarre plot or because I got bored with it. If you have already published one book, your readers will be expecting more of the story and so you will have to force yourself to finish it, which will result in bad writing. Or, in the cases of authors like George R. R. Martin, you take forever to finish it for whatever reason and so incur the wrath of your impatient readers, which may also cause you to lose your audience.
In the end, if you want to write a book series, it is best if you write it all out at once over a period of time and develop the story. This will help you develop the story itself but will also tell you if you really want to stick with it for a while. Sure, it may take years for you to finish the story completely to the point where you are happy with it, but remember my earlier post: the longer you sit on your story and develop it, the better it will turn out.
One problem is consistency. In the early life of your story, you are not going to think up entire situations, back stories, or whatnot until some time later. If you write and publish only one book at a time, while continuing the story, you may discover some secret history between two of the characters or some new side plot that would make the story... except the problem is that the previous book as been published and cannot be altered. So thus you are forced to introduce something new rather suddenly and which could require character personalities or histories to be changed, but which cannot be altered drastically without coming across as inconsistent. I have seen this myself as my own work in progress has changed over the three and one-half years of its existence where the story largely remains the same but where characters and back stories evolve into something originally different.
A related issue is a greater amount of world-building that will inevitably take place the further you go into a story. It depends on the author, but you may develop more of the history, the languages, or an endless list of side aspects to the story; if you use magic in the story, you may deepen it and expand the rules. However, if you write-publish one book at a time, you will run into further problems of consistency. An example would be Christopher Paolini's "Inheritance Cycle". Because the books were all written at different times (in other words, he planned out the series but wrote each book one at a time), his explanation for magic and related magical events are different for each book, and thus his magic does not make sense at all.
Another problem of writing one book at a time is you may lose steam. I myself have gone through the stage of fantasy writing where I write one book and plan for others but by the time I finish at least the first part of the story, I have to put an end to the series for whatever reason there is, whether it be because of a bizarre plot or because I got bored with it. If you have already published one book, your readers will be expecting more of the story and so you will have to force yourself to finish it, which will result in bad writing. Or, in the cases of authors like George R. R. Martin, you take forever to finish it for whatever reason and so incur the wrath of your impatient readers, which may also cause you to lose your audience.
In the end, if you want to write a book series, it is best if you write it all out at once over a period of time and develop the story. This will help you develop the story itself but will also tell you if you really want to stick with it for a while. Sure, it may take years for you to finish the story completely to the point where you are happy with it, but remember my earlier post: the longer you sit on your story and develop it, the better it will turn out.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Villains
Most villains in stories today are not well-written. Despite being supposedly evil and intelligent, they often come across as complete idiots who are more likely to make the reader laugh instead of quake in his boots. I will give a few examples of bad villains.
1) They often become evil because of either an abusive past or because of some traumatic event in their lives; an example would be Galbatorix from "The Inheritance Cycle" who turned to evil because his dragon got killed. While this can offer one reason for a villain's motives, this has been overused. And, also, not every person who was abused as a child or had something bad happen to them turns to "the dark side". For a point in case, look at some of the following characters from "Lord of the Rings": Frodo's parents drowned when he was a child, Faramir was passed over by his father in favor of his brother, Aragorn's father was killed by orcs when he was a child, and Galadriel has been exiled from Valinor for centuries and forbidden to return; these are examples from only one book, but all of these have had traumatic experiences in some form or another in their lifetime and none of them became evil.
2) They are often considered insane or not in their right mind. Galbatorix is another example of this, but I am sure there are others as well. An issue with this is that who would follow a mad leader? Let me play devil's advocate here; say that a former warrior who had a nervous breakdown during a war escapes from the asylum where he has been living and starts proclaiming himself to be king. Even if he kills a few people, do you honestly think that people would believe him? Even if the man somehow managed to get into power, how would he be able to maintain it? How would he get the military to his side to support him in his position? When considering an insane ruler, keep these questions in mind. You could, however, use this if either the ruler goes crazy while he is already in power or if someone else is in the true power seat and is merely using the king as a puppet.
3) They wear black. In most stories, the villains always wear black and walk around with a swish of their cloaks or their robes. Unless your villain has OCD or some other mental problem (which, see above), they will not stick to one color. So add a little more color to their clothing.
4) The villains more often then not send their worst servants and underlings to do the dirty work; but the hero (or heroine) always manages to escape, and then the villain send out someone only a little better than the last guy, and he too will fail. If your villain is rational and truly as intelligent as he seems to be (because if he is not, then how will he maintain support or even get into power in the first place?), then he will send his best servants, assassins, trackers, or whatnot to do the job right the first time.
5) The villains almost somehow always reveal their "grand, evil scheme" or something of that nature to the hero, which usually will aid him in defeating the evil. This is not rational thinking: to reveal everything just because you've captured the hero and are going to kill him (though you'll fail in that too) is stupid. If your villain is intelligent, he will keep his plans to himself. Having the hero or one of the "good guys" to figure out the villain's motives or his ultimate plan without him actually telling it out loud would be much more interesting, in my opinion.
6) They often sit inside their grand palaces and on their thrones, waiting for whatever news they want or need. In reality, villains, whether kings or not, do not sit around and let everyone else do the work. If they truly want their plans to succeed, they will be far more active in making sure their purposes are fulfilled. Sure, they may not leave their place of residence, but keep them truly busy.
7) They are not evil for the right reasons. If you want your villain to be truly evil, then he has to act that way. And it has to be more than "he killed the last king", "he has high taxes", or "he forces people into his army". In this case, you have to show it rather then tell it.
I am sure I could think of other examples, but sadly my brain needs time to recuperate from this difficult college semester. In the end, however, I hope these tips will help you think more about your villains and how to make them truly evil instead of relying on stereotypes.
1) They often become evil because of either an abusive past or because of some traumatic event in their lives; an example would be Galbatorix from "The Inheritance Cycle" who turned to evil because his dragon got killed. While this can offer one reason for a villain's motives, this has been overused. And, also, not every person who was abused as a child or had something bad happen to them turns to "the dark side". For a point in case, look at some of the following characters from "Lord of the Rings": Frodo's parents drowned when he was a child, Faramir was passed over by his father in favor of his brother, Aragorn's father was killed by orcs when he was a child, and Galadriel has been exiled from Valinor for centuries and forbidden to return; these are examples from only one book, but all of these have had traumatic experiences in some form or another in their lifetime and none of them became evil.
2) They are often considered insane or not in their right mind. Galbatorix is another example of this, but I am sure there are others as well. An issue with this is that who would follow a mad leader? Let me play devil's advocate here; say that a former warrior who had a nervous breakdown during a war escapes from the asylum where he has been living and starts proclaiming himself to be king. Even if he kills a few people, do you honestly think that people would believe him? Even if the man somehow managed to get into power, how would he be able to maintain it? How would he get the military to his side to support him in his position? When considering an insane ruler, keep these questions in mind. You could, however, use this if either the ruler goes crazy while he is already in power or if someone else is in the true power seat and is merely using the king as a puppet.
3) They wear black. In most stories, the villains always wear black and walk around with a swish of their cloaks or their robes. Unless your villain has OCD or some other mental problem (which, see above), they will not stick to one color. So add a little more color to their clothing.
4) The villains more often then not send their worst servants and underlings to do the dirty work; but the hero (or heroine) always manages to escape, and then the villain send out someone only a little better than the last guy, and he too will fail. If your villain is rational and truly as intelligent as he seems to be (because if he is not, then how will he maintain support or even get into power in the first place?), then he will send his best servants, assassins, trackers, or whatnot to do the job right the first time.
5) The villains almost somehow always reveal their "grand, evil scheme" or something of that nature to the hero, which usually will aid him in defeating the evil. This is not rational thinking: to reveal everything just because you've captured the hero and are going to kill him (though you'll fail in that too) is stupid. If your villain is intelligent, he will keep his plans to himself. Having the hero or one of the "good guys" to figure out the villain's motives or his ultimate plan without him actually telling it out loud would be much more interesting, in my opinion.
6) They often sit inside their grand palaces and on their thrones, waiting for whatever news they want or need. In reality, villains, whether kings or not, do not sit around and let everyone else do the work. If they truly want their plans to succeed, they will be far more active in making sure their purposes are fulfilled. Sure, they may not leave their place of residence, but keep them truly busy.
7) They are not evil for the right reasons. If you want your villain to be truly evil, then he has to act that way. And it has to be more than "he killed the last king", "he has high taxes", or "he forces people into his army". In this case, you have to show it rather then tell it.
I am sure I could think of other examples, but sadly my brain needs time to recuperate from this difficult college semester. In the end, however, I hope these tips will help you think more about your villains and how to make them truly evil instead of relying on stereotypes.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Stealing vs. Plagiarism
Plagiarism. Another fad that has taken the modern literary world by a storm and has seemingly become the next best thing among a lot of writers, young and old alike, especially in regards to fantasy. Basically, this is when a writer takes something that someone else has already used and puts it in their own writing; they may say they were inspired by the original author, but their often poor manuscript reeks of unoriginality. Sadly this is seen in both Christian and secular stories, and I'll list a few of them here: Christopher Paolini (his "Inheritance Cycle" is pretty much "Star Wars" set in Middle Earth) LB Graham (his writing is heavily inspired by Tolkien) are two big ones that I can think of at the moment.
Now, a common rebuttal is that "oh, no idea is truly original". Well, yes, that is true. Tolkien himself was inspired by Nordic mythology in his language and some of the names, but the difference between him and Paolini is that he took basic mythology and created an entire universe distinct from it, looking very different from the original source material. The difference ultimately between plagiarism and being semi-original is what you do with the original.
Let me give an example. Say you just finished reading Shakespeare's "Twelfth Night", and you think to yourself "you know, I want to write something about twins, mistaken identity, and romance." Plagiarizing would mean using similar names, a very similar plot scheme, etc... But, "stealing", on the other hand would be more like "say you have a twin brother and sister who come from an abusive home. The sister can't take it anymore, so she pretends to be a boy and runs away, hoping for a new life. Then she gets caught up in another adventure, and she and her brother get confused for each other in the midst of it" or something like that. Basically, stealing literary ideas in the right way is to take a basic concept and then to add your own twist and/or spin to it. And, no, setting a story in a different time, location, or another world does not count, as Paolini should have taught us.
Names are another big thing that has been stolen lately, and Tolkien especially has become the victim. In practically all fantasy written by young writers, whether they be published or not, they use a name extremely similar to one of Tolkien's. I myself was a perpetrator of this very crime, and it took me a few years to get out of its grasp. I may write a post about this later, but there is a way to be inspired by Tolkien's names but to create something unique about it.
Another argument against plagiarism is that "oh, it's a fantasy. All fantasy has dragons, trolls, elves, dwarfs, etc..." or "well, it's the archetypal hero journey." First off, fantasy may have such creatures, but there is a way to take them and to add your own unique twist; for myself, when wanting something different, I often go on wikipedia or do a little searching to see what normal legends are then either pick something that is not commonly used or come up with something different yet feasible. Secondly, the archetypal hero's quest is a popular plot device, but you have to make it your own version, not base it off of someone else's work.
So, remember. Being inspired by a writer or storyteller is one thing; taking what they wrote down and claiming it as your own is something different.
Now, a common rebuttal is that "oh, no idea is truly original". Well, yes, that is true. Tolkien himself was inspired by Nordic mythology in his language and some of the names, but the difference between him and Paolini is that he took basic mythology and created an entire universe distinct from it, looking very different from the original source material. The difference ultimately between plagiarism and being semi-original is what you do with the original.
Let me give an example. Say you just finished reading Shakespeare's "Twelfth Night", and you think to yourself "you know, I want to write something about twins, mistaken identity, and romance." Plagiarizing would mean using similar names, a very similar plot scheme, etc... But, "stealing", on the other hand would be more like "say you have a twin brother and sister who come from an abusive home. The sister can't take it anymore, so she pretends to be a boy and runs away, hoping for a new life. Then she gets caught up in another adventure, and she and her brother get confused for each other in the midst of it" or something like that. Basically, stealing literary ideas in the right way is to take a basic concept and then to add your own twist and/or spin to it. And, no, setting a story in a different time, location, or another world does not count, as Paolini should have taught us.
Names are another big thing that has been stolen lately, and Tolkien especially has become the victim. In practically all fantasy written by young writers, whether they be published or not, they use a name extremely similar to one of Tolkien's. I myself was a perpetrator of this very crime, and it took me a few years to get out of its grasp. I may write a post about this later, but there is a way to be inspired by Tolkien's names but to create something unique about it.
Another argument against plagiarism is that "oh, it's a fantasy. All fantasy has dragons, trolls, elves, dwarfs, etc..." or "well, it's the archetypal hero journey." First off, fantasy may have such creatures, but there is a way to take them and to add your own unique twist; for myself, when wanting something different, I often go on wikipedia or do a little searching to see what normal legends are then either pick something that is not commonly used or come up with something different yet feasible. Secondly, the archetypal hero's quest is a popular plot device, but you have to make it your own version, not base it off of someone else's work.
So, remember. Being inspired by a writer or storyteller is one thing; taking what they wrote down and claiming it as your own is something different.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Nanowrimo
Well, it's October, only one month away from the infamous nanowrimo.
For those who do not know what nanowrimo is, let me explain. It is basically an abbreviation for National November Writing Month, a novel-writing contest that takes place over the period of the entire month of November between 12 AM November 1 and 11:59 PM November 30. Your goal is to write at least 50,000 words in that time period; if you reach that goal, then you are a winner. You don't get big prizes or anything, but you do get smaller ones like avatars announcing you have reached 50,000 words and the ability to boast of reaching that many words; there is also the option, if you finish your story with 50,000+ words, then you can get the story printed out in something like a book style but only for yourself (I cannot vouch for it, as I have never done this). Between November 25 and 30, you can verify that you have the required word count, and they do this by you copying and pasting your entire document into a counter to make sure you aren't cheating.
But, there are rules to this contest. You can't type one word 50,000 times (of course), and you cannot basically do a rewrite of something else you have done (basically, you cannot work directly from a draft of something you have already done; but, like I did last year, I did a basic rehash of an older story but relied mostly on my own memory to write down scenes, and I did not work directly from a previous draft). So, this means you have to come up with something new in rough draft form. The good thing about the contest is that you do not have to be perfect. No need to worry about plot holes or character development because it is just a first draft. Granted, you will hate what you've written afterwards (I did, and I still do), but perhaps in the future you will go back to it and rework it into a polished jewel.
I did the contest for the first time last year, and I am contemplating doing it again (though it will depend on if I can get a workable idea and if my college class load does not kill me first). I encourage any other aspiring novelists to give this contest a try if you have not already. It is fast-paced and will be hard, and it definitely helps to have a support group of other writing friends to push you along. You will be tempted to pull out your hair, but how many other writers can boast of reaching 50,000 words in 30 days?
For those who do not know what nanowrimo is, let me explain. It is basically an abbreviation for National November Writing Month, a novel-writing contest that takes place over the period of the entire month of November between 12 AM November 1 and 11:59 PM November 30. Your goal is to write at least 50,000 words in that time period; if you reach that goal, then you are a winner. You don't get big prizes or anything, but you do get smaller ones like avatars announcing you have reached 50,000 words and the ability to boast of reaching that many words; there is also the option, if you finish your story with 50,000+ words, then you can get the story printed out in something like a book style but only for yourself (I cannot vouch for it, as I have never done this). Between November 25 and 30, you can verify that you have the required word count, and they do this by you copying and pasting your entire document into a counter to make sure you aren't cheating.
But, there are rules to this contest. You can't type one word 50,000 times (of course), and you cannot basically do a rewrite of something else you have done (basically, you cannot work directly from a draft of something you have already done; but, like I did last year, I did a basic rehash of an older story but relied mostly on my own memory to write down scenes, and I did not work directly from a previous draft). So, this means you have to come up with something new in rough draft form. The good thing about the contest is that you do not have to be perfect. No need to worry about plot holes or character development because it is just a first draft. Granted, you will hate what you've written afterwards (I did, and I still do), but perhaps in the future you will go back to it and rework it into a polished jewel.
I did the contest for the first time last year, and I am contemplating doing it again (though it will depend on if I can get a workable idea and if my college class load does not kill me first). I encourage any other aspiring novelists to give this contest a try if you have not already. It is fast-paced and will be hard, and it definitely helps to have a support group of other writing friends to push you along. You will be tempted to pull out your hair, but how many other writers can boast of reaching 50,000 words in 30 days?
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Strong Females
One thing that really drives me up a wall when reading most modern crap today is the portrayal of female characters, whether they be the lead or just in the background. The two most common views are the following: the rebellious hot babe or the quiet homemaker who has little part to play in the story.
Now to explain. The rebellious hot babe, who usually has a major or semi-major role, is the beautiful girl who goes out to war and kicks butt there, and usually doing such things out of rebellion, typically with a parent or guardian-figure. These girls often sometimes can be bad-tempered or feminist, saying that they can handle things as well as the men and don't like being held back because of it. Not only are they determined to make their mark on the world, but they also are often the love interest of a main male character, usually a romance based solely on physical appearances. An example of this character is Arya from Christopher Paolini's "Inheritance Cycle". However, these girls are not always pushy and let you know that they're as good as men; sometimes, it is more subtle, usually quietly spoken by when they pick up a sword and start helping during a battle.
The quiet homemaker has a few varying forms, but they are generally the submissive, motherly types who are often the love interests for minor male characters and serve no other purpose then their relationship to the men. An example of this, also from Paolini's series, is Elaine, a minor character who has a pregnancy that lasts for pretty much the entirety of two books (how that is biologically possible escapes me, but that is not relevant), and she does nothing else for the story besides being a mother to a few other minor characters. Another example would be Bella Swann from "Twilight".
Related to the homemaker is the damsel in distress. This is a female character who may not be the quiet girl, but she is often either related to the protagonist or romantically involved in some way. She may be told that she has an importance in saving the world, but in the end she is only used for advancing the plot by being kidnapped, rescued, and then re-kidnapped again; the only example I can think of for this one is in a non-published work that I have read. Or, on a related note, a similar damsel is told she has a big part to play but in the end is nothing more than a minor character, overshadowed by the protagonist, who is often a male; an example of this one is Taryn from Nikk Fensterman's "Twins".
Now, having these characters is not necessarily a bad thing, but it gives the appearance of very weak and stereotyped female characters. You can have strong females without resorting to these stereotypes, and I will give two examples, both from George R. R. Martin's "Song of Fire and Ice" (granted, I have only read the first book "Game of Thrones", so you'll have to forgive me for relying on one book). The first one is Catelyn Stark, married to Lord Eddard Stark, one of the main characters of the story. Even though she married him more out of arrangement and not for love, the two have a good non-angsty relationship, and she loves her husband and her children very dearly. As the plot picks up and conspiracy rises, Catelyn, wanting to find out who tried to kill one of her children, quietly travels all over the kingdom to seek this information and to bring the assassin to justice. Despite her motherly nature, she comes across as strong because she does not go into battles but neither does she sit at home and do nothing. The second female in the book that comes across as strong is Cersei Lannister. Cersei may be the king's wife and daughter of a prominent family, but she is not to be trifled with. She may seemingly not to much, but the reader can tell that there is more to her that meets the eye and that she is certainly manipulating events. Other strong female characters in literature would be Jane Austen's female protagonists like Elinor Dashwood, who is quiet but has great emotional and mental strength, and Elizabeth Bennett, who has her faults but only seeks to uphold her family's honor and reputation. There are many more examples of strong women in literature, but these are a few examples.
So, please, do not fall into this modern literature trap. Your females do not have to be aggressive bulls, but neither do they have to be doormats. There is a happy balance here, so seek it and write it.
Now to explain. The rebellious hot babe, who usually has a major or semi-major role, is the beautiful girl who goes out to war and kicks butt there, and usually doing such things out of rebellion, typically with a parent or guardian-figure. These girls often sometimes can be bad-tempered or feminist, saying that they can handle things as well as the men and don't like being held back because of it. Not only are they determined to make their mark on the world, but they also are often the love interest of a main male character, usually a romance based solely on physical appearances. An example of this character is Arya from Christopher Paolini's "Inheritance Cycle". However, these girls are not always pushy and let you know that they're as good as men; sometimes, it is more subtle, usually quietly spoken by when they pick up a sword and start helping during a battle.
The quiet homemaker has a few varying forms, but they are generally the submissive, motherly types who are often the love interests for minor male characters and serve no other purpose then their relationship to the men. An example of this, also from Paolini's series, is Elaine, a minor character who has a pregnancy that lasts for pretty much the entirety of two books (how that is biologically possible escapes me, but that is not relevant), and she does nothing else for the story besides being a mother to a few other minor characters. Another example would be Bella Swann from "Twilight".
Related to the homemaker is the damsel in distress. This is a female character who may not be the quiet girl, but she is often either related to the protagonist or romantically involved in some way. She may be told that she has an importance in saving the world, but in the end she is only used for advancing the plot by being kidnapped, rescued, and then re-kidnapped again; the only example I can think of for this one is in a non-published work that I have read. Or, on a related note, a similar damsel is told she has a big part to play but in the end is nothing more than a minor character, overshadowed by the protagonist, who is often a male; an example of this one is Taryn from Nikk Fensterman's "Twins".
Now, having these characters is not necessarily a bad thing, but it gives the appearance of very weak and stereotyped female characters. You can have strong females without resorting to these stereotypes, and I will give two examples, both from George R. R. Martin's "Song of Fire and Ice" (granted, I have only read the first book "Game of Thrones", so you'll have to forgive me for relying on one book). The first one is Catelyn Stark, married to Lord Eddard Stark, one of the main characters of the story. Even though she married him more out of arrangement and not for love, the two have a good non-angsty relationship, and she loves her husband and her children very dearly. As the plot picks up and conspiracy rises, Catelyn, wanting to find out who tried to kill one of her children, quietly travels all over the kingdom to seek this information and to bring the assassin to justice. Despite her motherly nature, she comes across as strong because she does not go into battles but neither does she sit at home and do nothing. The second female in the book that comes across as strong is Cersei Lannister. Cersei may be the king's wife and daughter of a prominent family, but she is not to be trifled with. She may seemingly not to much, but the reader can tell that there is more to her that meets the eye and that she is certainly manipulating events. Other strong female characters in literature would be Jane Austen's female protagonists like Elinor Dashwood, who is quiet but has great emotional and mental strength, and Elizabeth Bennett, who has her faults but only seeks to uphold her family's honor and reputation. There are many more examples of strong women in literature, but these are a few examples.
So, please, do not fall into this modern literature trap. Your females do not have to be aggressive bulls, but neither do they have to be doormats. There is a happy balance here, so seek it and write it.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Avoiding Marys and Garys: Part 2
And, now that I have a bit of a breather for, hopefully, the next hour, I will continue my discussion on Mary Sues.
If you remember, I gave a short list of normal Mary Sue traits on my last post. As I said, some of these traits are not bad. In fact, many of these descriptions could describe any of our characters. But, the difference between a good character and a Mary Sue is execution, how the author carries it out.
If you decide to make your character extremely talented and beautiful, you still have to keep them realistic. To keep them from looking like demigods that should be loved and admired by all, you have to remember that they are only human; no one is that perfect, even in a fictional story. Say, for example, you decide to make a character an expert linguist or magician. At the same time, make them absolutely horrible in another area like mathematics, athletics, or even just having no everyday sense at all. Another example would be a character who is stunningly beautiful physically; you could give it a real nasty temper or bad attitude that makes people back off.
On a related note, no character can be perfectly loved by all the good guys. We all have our own serious personality/ attitude flaws as well as our own perspectives on life and various events that we watch unfold before our eyes. Just because your character may think that the military needs to be more aggressive against the enemy or that the school needs a new pop machine doesn't mean that's the right view and that everyone else who thinks otherwise is an enemy. I am currently trying to put this into practice with my own fantasy novel; it is set during a war, and you have various captains, lieutenants, and then the king all trying to protect the land, but they all have different views from each other; just because a lieutenant thinks that the king and his nephew (the protagonist) have idiotic ideas doesn't automatically make him a villain nor a rival.
This leads into another point. A common flaw with Mary Sues is that they don't make mistakes or, if they do, they end up fixing it and solving the problem entirely; they don't really learn anything or retain the lesson permanently. Don't be afraid to let your characters make major mistakes with no easy solution or with one that doesn't completely solve the problem. In real life, the older we grow, we look back over mistakes we make and regret being foolish, but it is ultimately those mistakes that teach us and mold us. It is how your characters react to their mistakes and learn from them that will give them greater maturity and cause them to change.
I may continue this discussion later when I have more time.
If you remember, I gave a short list of normal Mary Sue traits on my last post. As I said, some of these traits are not bad. In fact, many of these descriptions could describe any of our characters. But, the difference between a good character and a Mary Sue is execution, how the author carries it out.
If you decide to make your character extremely talented and beautiful, you still have to keep them realistic. To keep them from looking like demigods that should be loved and admired by all, you have to remember that they are only human; no one is that perfect, even in a fictional story. Say, for example, you decide to make a character an expert linguist or magician. At the same time, make them absolutely horrible in another area like mathematics, athletics, or even just having no everyday sense at all. Another example would be a character who is stunningly beautiful physically; you could give it a real nasty temper or bad attitude that makes people back off.
On a related note, no character can be perfectly loved by all the good guys. We all have our own serious personality/ attitude flaws as well as our own perspectives on life and various events that we watch unfold before our eyes. Just because your character may think that the military needs to be more aggressive against the enemy or that the school needs a new pop machine doesn't mean that's the right view and that everyone else who thinks otherwise is an enemy. I am currently trying to put this into practice with my own fantasy novel; it is set during a war, and you have various captains, lieutenants, and then the king all trying to protect the land, but they all have different views from each other; just because a lieutenant thinks that the king and his nephew (the protagonist) have idiotic ideas doesn't automatically make him a villain nor a rival.
This leads into another point. A common flaw with Mary Sues is that they don't make mistakes or, if they do, they end up fixing it and solving the problem entirely; they don't really learn anything or retain the lesson permanently. Don't be afraid to let your characters make major mistakes with no easy solution or with one that doesn't completely solve the problem. In real life, the older we grow, we look back over mistakes we make and regret being foolish, but it is ultimately those mistakes that teach us and mold us. It is how your characters react to their mistakes and learn from them that will give them greater maturity and cause them to change.
I may continue this discussion later when I have more time.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Avoiding Marys and Garys
A major problem in stories nowadays is the huge amount of what are called "Mary Sues", basically a shallow character that is a self-insert for the author (male versions of these are often called "Gary Stus"). There is nothing good about these characters, as they are annoying and distract from the story, making it hard to read.
Here are some signs of a Mary Sue (took me a little research to make sure these were correct):
- Unusual, special character. This Mary Sue is unique in the world and has very special powers or gifts that no one else has. They may have a unique name and unique features, often including great beauty or being very attractive. The character has special magical powers or great talents like being an expert at oil painting in their early teenage years. They may also take an extremely short time to learn certain skills that would normally take years.
- Everybody loves him/her. This character may have a stubborn, unintelligent, and mean personality, but all the other characters fawn over him/her, not caring about their faults. The good guys often love this character and bad guys hate this character, and there's no in-between. Basically, the character can do no wrong in the author's eyes, and so everyone must agree with them with no criticism or anything bad said toward them.
- They usually have a very shallow romance. The kind of romance where he/she falls in love with the hottie, usually the popular person that everyone else has fallen head over heels for.
- In relation to the first point, Mary Sues are given preferential treatment in regards to their appearance. They are physically perfect in every way and may even have oddly colored eyes or hair. Some Sues often have a special mark on them that speaks of their unique position, though this is not always the case.
- This is not always the mark of a Sue, but they have some very special role to play in killing the villain and saving the world.
- This is also not always the mark of a Sue, but they often have very troubled pasts like abuse, dead family members, etc... and this turns simply into a way for them to angst and for the readers to feel sorry for them.
- A Sue may be a wish fulfillment of the author, having the same physical appearance as him/her, similar interests and hobbies, etc... Or, they may be what the author wishes they could be, like being more attractive or more talented.
This is not a comprehensive list, and it was largely taken from the following website: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CommonMarySueTraits
To test out your characters for any signs of Suedom, try out the following link: http://www.ponylandpress.com/ms-test.html However, I would say, use caution, as sometimes it may call a character a Sue when it is not. Still, try to beware of this severe flaw that is floating around nowadays.
Here are some signs of a Mary Sue (took me a little research to make sure these were correct):
- Unusual, special character. This Mary Sue is unique in the world and has very special powers or gifts that no one else has. They may have a unique name and unique features, often including great beauty or being very attractive. The character has special magical powers or great talents like being an expert at oil painting in their early teenage years. They may also take an extremely short time to learn certain skills that would normally take years.
- Everybody loves him/her. This character may have a stubborn, unintelligent, and mean personality, but all the other characters fawn over him/her, not caring about their faults. The good guys often love this character and bad guys hate this character, and there's no in-between. Basically, the character can do no wrong in the author's eyes, and so everyone must agree with them with no criticism or anything bad said toward them.
- They usually have a very shallow romance. The kind of romance where he/she falls in love with the hottie, usually the popular person that everyone else has fallen head over heels for.
- In relation to the first point, Mary Sues are given preferential treatment in regards to their appearance. They are physically perfect in every way and may even have oddly colored eyes or hair. Some Sues often have a special mark on them that speaks of their unique position, though this is not always the case.
- This is not always the mark of a Sue, but they have some very special role to play in killing the villain and saving the world.
- This is also not always the mark of a Sue, but they often have very troubled pasts like abuse, dead family members, etc... and this turns simply into a way for them to angst and for the readers to feel sorry for them.
- A Sue may be a wish fulfillment of the author, having the same physical appearance as him/her, similar interests and hobbies, etc... Or, they may be what the author wishes they could be, like being more attractive or more talented.
This is not a comprehensive list, and it was largely taken from the following website: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CommonMarySueTraits
To test out your characters for any signs of Suedom, try out the following link: http://www.ponylandpress.com/ms-test.html However, I would say, use caution, as sometimes it may call a character a Sue when it is not. Still, try to beware of this severe flaw that is floating around nowadays.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Alien Culture
Sorry for the lack of posts, but I'm in the middle of a creative drought at the moment, where I want to write something but have absolutely no clue what and nothing new is coming to mind. Anyway...
Ok, now the title of my post has nothing to do with little green men hovering in space ships above our planet. I was camping this week at a lovely little place on the lake in the middle of the mountains (not as pretty as Lake Nantahala, but better than Lake Lanier) when I was brainstorming about a possible culture for a story when I thought about creating different cultures.
One thing that really bugs me in a story is how someone can "create" a unique culture for a fantasy or sci-fi story, but it does not come across as alien; in other words, you could plop this culture in our world and essentially it would not be very different to us. There are still familiar elements in it, like the typical wedding/ marriage where you usually have a ring, a ceremony, and then a big party afterwards. In the end, this said wedding doesn't look unique and could be taking place in 21st century New York City or something like that. Or, another example. In most fantasy stories, the "age of manhood" where a boy becomes a man is generally between sixteen and eighteen, but he comes across as immature or there's no real reason for the age to be that young.
So, a few little suggestions for adding a bit of alien spice to your cultures. Look up lesser-known ones and their rites for maturity, naming, etc... and get some ideas. You could write it so that wedding ceremonies are very private affairs and the celebration is only for others, not for the couple, or vice versa. In the case of the maturity age, you could raise or lower it (Tolkien's hobbits didn't reach maturity until they were 33 years old), but please, no whiny, angsty characters; in the 1800's, you had girls who got married at 13 years old, but they certainly weren't the immature types you see today, rather the hard-working women who were fully ready to manage a household.
Sorry if my thoughts seem a little disoriented today, but I am a bit tired.
Ok, now the title of my post has nothing to do with little green men hovering in space ships above our planet. I was camping this week at a lovely little place on the lake in the middle of the mountains (not as pretty as Lake Nantahala, but better than Lake Lanier) when I was brainstorming about a possible culture for a story when I thought about creating different cultures.
One thing that really bugs me in a story is how someone can "create" a unique culture for a fantasy or sci-fi story, but it does not come across as alien; in other words, you could plop this culture in our world and essentially it would not be very different to us. There are still familiar elements in it, like the typical wedding/ marriage where you usually have a ring, a ceremony, and then a big party afterwards. In the end, this said wedding doesn't look unique and could be taking place in 21st century New York City or something like that. Or, another example. In most fantasy stories, the "age of manhood" where a boy becomes a man is generally between sixteen and eighteen, but he comes across as immature or there's no real reason for the age to be that young.
So, a few little suggestions for adding a bit of alien spice to your cultures. Look up lesser-known ones and their rites for maturity, naming, etc... and get some ideas. You could write it so that wedding ceremonies are very private affairs and the celebration is only for others, not for the couple, or vice versa. In the case of the maturity age, you could raise or lower it (Tolkien's hobbits didn't reach maturity until they were 33 years old), but please, no whiny, angsty characters; in the 1800's, you had girls who got married at 13 years old, but they certainly weren't the immature types you see today, rather the hard-working women who were fully ready to manage a household.
Sorry if my thoughts seem a little disoriented today, but I am a bit tired.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Accepting Criticism
Let's face it: you spend time, blood, sweat, and tears on a story, leaving you feel so proud and on top of the world; the last thing you want to hear is criticism. I know this for a fact, as I have personally felt it myself.
However, if you really love your story, then you must be willing to accept what people say about it and contemplate it. If someone says "your writing is horrible, your characters are unsympathetic, yada yada yada", your first reaction is to get defensive or to ignore the comment, only focusing on the good people say. Any author's response should be to listen to what people say, especially if you plan to publish, because heeding criticism makes you into a better writer. It reminds me of a few years ago when I was working on a fantasy novel and wanted feedback; I had gotten positive from a peer and from an adult, but my father tore apart the first chapter. I felt discouraged at first and later gave up the novel, but, looking back over it, the critique was actually good and the story was a piece of trash. And it was this that has helped me to grow in my writing, but I still have quite a way to go.
Accepting harsh words about your writing is not easy, but it is necessary. Do not ignore them, as they are vital to growing in your abilities and they will make your story better. This advice is not only to aspiring authors but also to those who have already been published; being published does not automatically let you off the hook for criticism, despite what many authors may think.
However, if you really love your story, then you must be willing to accept what people say about it and contemplate it. If someone says "your writing is horrible, your characters are unsympathetic, yada yada yada", your first reaction is to get defensive or to ignore the comment, only focusing on the good people say. Any author's response should be to listen to what people say, especially if you plan to publish, because heeding criticism makes you into a better writer. It reminds me of a few years ago when I was working on a fantasy novel and wanted feedback; I had gotten positive from a peer and from an adult, but my father tore apart the first chapter. I felt discouraged at first and later gave up the novel, but, looking back over it, the critique was actually good and the story was a piece of trash. And it was this that has helped me to grow in my writing, but I still have quite a way to go.
Accepting harsh words about your writing is not easy, but it is necessary. Do not ignore them, as they are vital to growing in your abilities and they will make your story better. This advice is not only to aspiring authors but also to those who have already been published; being published does not automatically let you off the hook for criticism, despite what many authors may think.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
