Nathan Wall's Blog - Posts Tagged "south-park"
Likable characters vs Detestable characters.
I see this in reviews a lot, and it's something I am sure to receive for my novels once they start hitting the shelves. They go a little something like this...
"Ermahgerd, I totally stopped reading this book (or didn't like it) because I absolutely hated the 2nd supporting character. I hated him. He was such an ass, so it's bad writing and a stupid dumb-face novel. 2 stars."
So, I have to ask, what is wrong with a hated character? In fact, when I took creative writing classes in college (yes, you can get credit for those) one of the biggest compliments I could get for my short stories was: "I really hated that guy."
That was high praise! The fact that I could write someone so reviled in your own opinion that it made you hate me, the author, was fantastic (another blog post for another time).
When you write a Novel, Short-Story, or any other work of fiction (you can extend this into film and new media), you largely want to have characters that fall into two columns: sympathetic or reviled. The former is the most common, and leads to the most the likes, the former is much more difficult to pull off.
Sympathetic characters are ones like Batman, Luke Skywalker, Jay Gatsby...you get the point. Something happened to them, and now you feel bad and want to root for them. They're good guys with good hearts and intentions. They rarely do things that off-put the reader, but when they do it is often well deserved and certainly justifiable.
Then you have the reviled characters. The ones that you hate so much that you have to keep turning the page in order to see what happens next, or to see if they get their comeuppance. These are guys like Patrick Bateman and Tom Ripley. They're sociopaths who lie, cheat, murder, rape, and their views on the world are out of whack or slightly off-kilter. Yet, you can't wait to see what happens.
The fact that Bateman and Ripley are reviled individuals doesn't make them bad writing. In fact, it's quite the opposite. The fact the author was SO ABLE to get inside their minds and make you, the reader, detest complete fabrications is a testament to how great those stories really were.
The best example of this dichotomy of the fictitious character comes from South Park. I am sure the more pretentious of you is about to click out of this blog, but hear me out.
The best, and most liked, characters on the show are as follows: Cartman, Butters and Randy. We're going to leave Randy for another blog post, as his character type is a unique one.
It's no coincidence that many episodes which feature a Cartman heavy story arc often feature Butters in a large supporting role...and vice versa.
Cartman is a sociopathic, lying, manipulative, spoiled, racist, narcissistic, plotting, cock sucking, son-of-a-bitch (or is that hermaphrodite). You hate him, yet you can't stop laughing or watching. He is always up to something. Cartman is the ultimate villain, and we loved it when Wendy beat his ass. Yet, there is something gratifying when we watch him win. Eat up, Scott Tenorman!
Butters is sweat, innocent, unassuming, gentle, caring and supportive. He is always being shit on by the other characters, getting his heart broken, his eye gouged, or drowned by his mother. Everyone in Butters world is so messed up, and caught in the middle is this innocent boy who was probably molested by his uncle at a young age. Holy shit...
You watch the episodes, hoping one day Butters will win, and Professor Chaos will reign supreme, but it never happens. And you love the little guy for it.
Both are well-written examples of the hated character vs the sympathetic character. Just because Butters is sympathetic, doesn't make him a better character, nor the episodes which feature him more relatable. It's important, as reviewers, to understand the difference between rating a book based on what we personally thought of the characters.
It's not the job of a novel to make you like all the characters in it. It's the job of the novel to entertain you and evoke emotional responses that make sense in context, and either further your own moral beliefs, or have you ask questions.
Patrick Bateman wouldn't be Patrick Bateman if you liked him, and thus the themes and responses we get from the story would be completely different. Now, if you like Bateman on a personal level, and just not how he is written, maybe you should get some help.
Until next time, watch those stars. Evaluate what the author was going for, and if those sympathetic or hated characters did their job. Sometimes, the answers will surprise you.
"Ermahgerd, I totally stopped reading this book (or didn't like it) because I absolutely hated the 2nd supporting character. I hated him. He was such an ass, so it's bad writing and a stupid dumb-face novel. 2 stars."
So, I have to ask, what is wrong with a hated character? In fact, when I took creative writing classes in college (yes, you can get credit for those) one of the biggest compliments I could get for my short stories was: "I really hated that guy."
That was high praise! The fact that I could write someone so reviled in your own opinion that it made you hate me, the author, was fantastic (another blog post for another time).
When you write a Novel, Short-Story, or any other work of fiction (you can extend this into film and new media), you largely want to have characters that fall into two columns: sympathetic or reviled. The former is the most common, and leads to the most the likes, the former is much more difficult to pull off.
Sympathetic characters are ones like Batman, Luke Skywalker, Jay Gatsby...you get the point. Something happened to them, and now you feel bad and want to root for them. They're good guys with good hearts and intentions. They rarely do things that off-put the reader, but when they do it is often well deserved and certainly justifiable.
Then you have the reviled characters. The ones that you hate so much that you have to keep turning the page in order to see what happens next, or to see if they get their comeuppance. These are guys like Patrick Bateman and Tom Ripley. They're sociopaths who lie, cheat, murder, rape, and their views on the world are out of whack or slightly off-kilter. Yet, you can't wait to see what happens.
The fact that Bateman and Ripley are reviled individuals doesn't make them bad writing. In fact, it's quite the opposite. The fact the author was SO ABLE to get inside their minds and make you, the reader, detest complete fabrications is a testament to how great those stories really were.
The best example of this dichotomy of the fictitious character comes from South Park. I am sure the more pretentious of you is about to click out of this blog, but hear me out.
The best, and most liked, characters on the show are as follows: Cartman, Butters and Randy. We're going to leave Randy for another blog post, as his character type is a unique one.
It's no coincidence that many episodes which feature a Cartman heavy story arc often feature Butters in a large supporting role...and vice versa.
Cartman is a sociopathic, lying, manipulative, spoiled, racist, narcissistic, plotting, cock sucking, son-of-a-bitch (or is that hermaphrodite). You hate him, yet you can't stop laughing or watching. He is always up to something. Cartman is the ultimate villain, and we loved it when Wendy beat his ass. Yet, there is something gratifying when we watch him win. Eat up, Scott Tenorman!
Butters is sweat, innocent, unassuming, gentle, caring and supportive. He is always being shit on by the other characters, getting his heart broken, his eye gouged, or drowned by his mother. Everyone in Butters world is so messed up, and caught in the middle is this innocent boy who was probably molested by his uncle at a young age. Holy shit...
You watch the episodes, hoping one day Butters will win, and Professor Chaos will reign supreme, but it never happens. And you love the little guy for it.
Both are well-written examples of the hated character vs the sympathetic character. Just because Butters is sympathetic, doesn't make him a better character, nor the episodes which feature him more relatable. It's important, as reviewers, to understand the difference between rating a book based on what we personally thought of the characters.
It's not the job of a novel to make you like all the characters in it. It's the job of the novel to entertain you and evoke emotional responses that make sense in context, and either further your own moral beliefs, or have you ask questions.
Patrick Bateman wouldn't be Patrick Bateman if you liked him, and thus the themes and responses we get from the story would be completely different. Now, if you like Bateman on a personal level, and just not how he is written, maybe you should get some help.
Until next time, watch those stars. Evaluate what the author was going for, and if those sympathetic or hated characters did their job. Sometimes, the answers will surprise you.
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.
