Nathan Wall's Blog - Posts Tagged "eric-cartmen"
Well-written characters and great writing
In my previous blog, I focused on how we (reviewers in this instance) often approach rating a work in the wrong frame of mind. I went into detail about the difference between reviled characters and likable ones, and how they shouldn't directly correlate with being good or bad writing.
A hated character, like Eric Cartman from South Park, can be a perfectly written character, whether or not he is the main focus, or the nemesis, at any given moment.
I felt the need to make this distinction because the folks here on Goodreads seem to fall into this trap. Not everyone, and by no means the majority, but a decent enough sized chunk. I bring this up, because upon reviewing books I've read (after establishing my new profile) I came across reviews of Katniss Everdeen and Patrick Bateman. Katniss was much loved, and put on a pedestal, while Bateman was trashed, and that got me to thinking: do the people who rate Bella Swan and Patrick Bateman as poorly written characters do so correctly?
This one reviewer of American Psycho was a self-proclaimed feminist, and she said on multiple occasions during her 1-star rant that she detested the way Bateman viewed the world, how his rapes and murdering of women was glorified, and how she nearly vomited several times before not finishing the novel. Even though I COMPLETELY agree with her assessment of how Bateman was written, I have to ask: so f'ing what?
How was that BAD writing?
Quite bluntly, her comments were wrong. A hardcore, bra burning, feminist (not saying she is one, just using an example) is never going to agree with Bateman's outlook on life, or his hyper-sexualized narration of killing hookers, and she isn't meant to. That was THE POINT of Bateman's character. To illicit that response from the reader. You'd have to be disturbed not to be detested.
So that leads me into the point: what is a well-written character, and are they always likable?
To me, well-written characters are ones that illicit an emotional response from the reader and keep you turning the page. Great ones do too, but they do so while being active and with a purpose.
Bateman makes things happen, and as such he has problems he has to work through, and the drama is high as the murders pile up, and his world crashes around him. You want him to get caught, and yet you never lose sight that this is HIS story told from HIS perspective. It is going to be skewed.
On the flip side, you have Katniss Everdeen. She is a perfectly likable character, volunteers for the Hunger Games so her little sister won't die, and ends up having to do horrible things against her will just to survive. So sad, so sympathetic, so incredibly boring.
I don't like Katniss on a personal level. I think she is well-written, don't get me wrong, but I don't like her. And that, to me, says the author delivered a well-written character but not great writing. While most people think Katniss is a revered hero, I think she just spent much of the novel being a bitch and piggy-backing off of other people's efforts, or dumb mistakes. Katniss spat in the face of the Capitol, and as such she spent most of the first novel (and all of the second) being a passive participant who had largely no effect on the outcome. I've not read the third, and probably won't.
The Hunger Games were A GAME that she refused to play, and others played for her. It was Peeta who drew the sympathy from the viewers so that Katniss could receive gifts that would help her win. In Catching Fire, it is more of the same where she is reserved to dying so that Peeta can live, and yet everyone else builds a rebellion around her, help her survive, and all unbeknownst to her.
What the what-what?
Neither American Psycho nor The Hunger Games are perfectly written. I rated them 4 and 3 stars respectively. However, the difference between the two was that American Psycho delivered a believable (for that world) main character who was well-written, made things happened, and affected the plot. In the Hunger Games, we got a believable (for that world) main character who was well-written, but didn't make things happen, and didn't affect the plot.
There, people, lies the difference between characters determining good writing and bad writing...and it has nothing to do with your opinion of them, and everything to do with how they shape the story, and whether or not they keep you turning the page.
A hated character, like Eric Cartman from South Park, can be a perfectly written character, whether or not he is the main focus, or the nemesis, at any given moment.
I felt the need to make this distinction because the folks here on Goodreads seem to fall into this trap. Not everyone, and by no means the majority, but a decent enough sized chunk. I bring this up, because upon reviewing books I've read (after establishing my new profile) I came across reviews of Katniss Everdeen and Patrick Bateman. Katniss was much loved, and put on a pedestal, while Bateman was trashed, and that got me to thinking: do the people who rate Bella Swan and Patrick Bateman as poorly written characters do so correctly?
This one reviewer of American Psycho was a self-proclaimed feminist, and she said on multiple occasions during her 1-star rant that she detested the way Bateman viewed the world, how his rapes and murdering of women was glorified, and how she nearly vomited several times before not finishing the novel. Even though I COMPLETELY agree with her assessment of how Bateman was written, I have to ask: so f'ing what?
How was that BAD writing?
Quite bluntly, her comments were wrong. A hardcore, bra burning, feminist (not saying she is one, just using an example) is never going to agree with Bateman's outlook on life, or his hyper-sexualized narration of killing hookers, and she isn't meant to. That was THE POINT of Bateman's character. To illicit that response from the reader. You'd have to be disturbed not to be detested.
So that leads me into the point: what is a well-written character, and are they always likable?
To me, well-written characters are ones that illicit an emotional response from the reader and keep you turning the page. Great ones do too, but they do so while being active and with a purpose.
Bateman makes things happen, and as such he has problems he has to work through, and the drama is high as the murders pile up, and his world crashes around him. You want him to get caught, and yet you never lose sight that this is HIS story told from HIS perspective. It is going to be skewed.
On the flip side, you have Katniss Everdeen. She is a perfectly likable character, volunteers for the Hunger Games so her little sister won't die, and ends up having to do horrible things against her will just to survive. So sad, so sympathetic, so incredibly boring.
I don't like Katniss on a personal level. I think she is well-written, don't get me wrong, but I don't like her. And that, to me, says the author delivered a well-written character but not great writing. While most people think Katniss is a revered hero, I think she just spent much of the novel being a bitch and piggy-backing off of other people's efforts, or dumb mistakes. Katniss spat in the face of the Capitol, and as such she spent most of the first novel (and all of the second) being a passive participant who had largely no effect on the outcome. I've not read the third, and probably won't.
The Hunger Games were A GAME that she refused to play, and others played for her. It was Peeta who drew the sympathy from the viewers so that Katniss could receive gifts that would help her win. In Catching Fire, it is more of the same where she is reserved to dying so that Peeta can live, and yet everyone else builds a rebellion around her, help her survive, and all unbeknownst to her.
What the what-what?
Neither American Psycho nor The Hunger Games are perfectly written. I rated them 4 and 3 stars respectively. However, the difference between the two was that American Psycho delivered a believable (for that world) main character who was well-written, made things happened, and affected the plot. In the Hunger Games, we got a believable (for that world) main character who was well-written, but didn't make things happen, and didn't affect the plot.
There, people, lies the difference between characters determining good writing and bad writing...and it has nothing to do with your opinion of them, and everything to do with how they shape the story, and whether or not they keep you turning the page.
