Hatrack River Writers Workshop: Pet peeve: stoopid town guards and their ilk

This is topic Pet peeve: stoopid town guards and their ilk in forum Open Discussions About Writing at Hatrack River Writers Workshop.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/writers/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=004254

Posted by hoptoad (Member # 2145) on :

It can make me hurl a book into the 'not worth reading' pile that has accumulated at my bedside, the one my wife calls 'the compost heap'.

Town guards and enemy soldier or the like (I will call them 'the enemy'), who make bad decisions, display little or no common sense, or who are oafish, ineffectual, inattentive, gormless, credulous or too easily bribed just plain bug me. Especially when the MC conveniently benefits from 'the enemy's stupidity.

How have you approached creating 'the enemy' and making them smart enough to be dangerous but dumb enough for your characters to get away with whatever they are doing. How do you do it without making 'the enemy' cartoonish or giving them the status of a major character?

[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited September 18, 2007).]

Posted by Zero (Member # 3619) on :

My solution is to make the enemy extremely smart (because I hate stupid villains,) and make the MC even smarter, or else very clever. A smart person will use use good-judgement grounded in common sense. But this is usually heavily based in routine and what they expect.

Go around their senses and beat their expectations, and even a "smart" person won't be properly equipped to stop you. So a clever MC can beat these "guards" without them having to be incredibly stupid. It just might take a while to figure out something clever that is also believable and practical.

Posted by HuntGod (Member # 2259) on :

OSC has a scene in Empire, which I on the whole wasn't that crazy about, where soldiers are trying to sneak over a border and he does a very effective info dump over why they avoid certain routes etc. Part of the dump pertains to choosing routes specifically because of the characteristics a guard on that route would have.

Specifically that the off the beaten path routes would be more likely to have fewer guards, but the guards would likely be more anal in checking things, since they would be trying to get off that duty. A more heavilly travelled route would have a greater chance of being inspected, but the inspection would more than likely be more casual due to the volume of traffic.

It was a nice info dump and explained possible lax or "gormless" behavior by the guards in question.

That said why do you expect any better service from a "security guard" than the guy who serves you at McDonalds? Most private security is paid about the same and works equally bad hours.

I generally don't have a problem with lazy security, because I know too many guys who have done that work. There is also the peer pressure from the other guards to not generate any more work than neccesary.

Posted by Rick Norwood (Member # 5604) on :

There is a great scene in the film The Longest Day where the guards are searching the standard hay-wagon-with-resistance-fighters-under-the-hay. The guards aren't stupid, but then a pretty girl (a member of the resistance) rides by on a bicycle, and they all forget their search to watch the girl.

On the subject of stupid characters, in the current (and very funny) film Shoot-Em-Up, the hero says, "I called CBS and told them about the plot. And then, because I hate movies where the hero calls one person who turns out to be in cahoots with the villain, I called ABC, NBC, Fox News, The New York Times, and the Daily News."

Posted by InarticulateBabbler (Member # 4849) on :

Rick Norwood, I love that flick, but have always hated that scene. As if that were likely...The filmmakers took the audience for idiots, expecting them to believe Nazis were so easily distracted.

Posted by JeffBarton (Member # 5693) on :

Guards don't have to be gormless to be beaten. I think they can be of average ability - but not much more because the best troops are in front-line units, not sitting around guarding. Guards can follow their orders and doctrine very well. They'll walk their patrols, do the right checks at checkpoints and be suspicious of the suspicious. They don't have to be lazy or stupid. A smart or daring MC has the advantage in their predictability - they don't do any more than follow orders and doctrine. If their routine doesn't leave openings, there's always the pretty woman in a short skirt on a bicycle.

Posted by JeanneT (Member # 5709) on :

And if the guards happen to be female?

Posted by RMatthewWare (Member # 4831) on :

Stupid or cliqued bad guys are annoying. There needs to be a reason.

In my WIP the 'enemy' actually catches the good guys and they have to talk to the king to get out of it. What kingdom (or evil genius, or whatever) would employ idiots in such an important role?

I had been debating a problem for a bit that involved how a bad guy (or this particular bad guy) goes bad, and how do they gain their power? In this world magic is a factor, and I wanted it to have a cost. But the trick was that the cost had to affect the good guys and the bad guys alike. It shouldn't just handicap the good guy. It was like end of the sequel to Eragon, Eldest. We get the rules and limits of magic, and then the bad guy completely devastates him. I was like, what? So this guy doesn't play by the same rules? That's stupid.

Posted by hoptoad (Member # 2145) on :

If the guard happens to be female? Supply her with a bicycle a short skirt, I suppose...

[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited September 19, 2007).]

Posted by JeanneT (Member # 5709) on :

I don't think my female guards are very impressed with another female in a short skirt. Maybe if you send Brad Pitt by in a short skirt.

Edit: Since you didn't seem to get it, I was referring to the assumption that guards would, of course, be male.

[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited September 19, 2007).]

Posted by hoptoad (Member # 2145) on :

oh I got it.

I meant this discussion to be serious -- dang it -- about how to easily build realistic minor characters ? It seems to me that the more work you put into them the more important they become.

[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited September 19, 2007).]

Posted by rstegman (Member # 3233) on :

bordom will have an effect.
how many times do you walk past a place where nothing happens, until you don't look at all. Consider all the signs around you. I bet that after you saw them a few times, you never gave them a thought. they could change, as long as they look similar, and you would never notice.
If the guards are stuck into a boring routine, one might be able to slip past without them noticing, as long as your tracks were not blatant.

Of course, if nothing happens, one can be as incompetant as possible, as long as one follows the orders and creates no waves.

Bribing tends to need more than "hi, twenty marks to let me through without a word." There is usually a discussion of some sort.

what I hate is where a unskilled, unarmed, unarmored innocent, inexperianced hero is able to lay waste hundreds of professionally trained, crack troups with state-of-the-art weapons and armor.

Posted by HuntGod (Member # 2259) on :

Everyone knows that Stormtrooper helmets ONLY allow peripheral vision, a serious design flaw in my opinion. Also to cut costs they put all the armor in the back on the chest piece, apparently the designers were French, good back armor is important for French troops, not so good for Imperials.

Posted by Zero (Member # 3619) on :

RMatthew,

I caught your comment about Eldest, and I thought the exact same thing. It's okay to have someone more powerful than someone else, but I like the costs and limits to be visible. Not just secret and convenient, or non-existent.

Posted by annepin (Member # 5952) on :

Yeah, I hate this too. But then I found myself doing it. Thankfully, my writing buddy caught me on it.

I think it's easy to make characters different. And making them smart, even the minor ones, makes your work as a writer more difficult (you have to come up with a better strategy for escape, perhaps) but it certainly makes for better reading, and funner writing.

I also hate coincidence. Guard just happens to look the other way.

Posted by Rick Norwood (Member # 5604) on :

Most people aren't smart. Half of the population has an IQ of 100 or less. It is as unrealistic to people your stories with all smart characters as it is to people them will stupid guards. The important thing is to have the stupid people cause problems for your main character, the way they do in real life, rather than making things easy.

Posted by J (Member # 2197) on :

Major props for widespread use of the word "gormless" in this thread.

I've done enough government work to understand the mentality of low-paid public officials, particularly police officers, to buy it when guards in novels display little independent thought or initiative. As long as they see what they expect to see, they won't lift a finger. A blend between "policy" and the path of least resistance will describe their behavior realistically every time.

Posted by hoptoad (Member # 2145) on :

Thanks J,
I used plenty of others, but that one word seemed to attract attention.

I don't object to guards just 'doing their thing' but do object to them doing really stupid out of the ordinary things. Like being tempted away into an alley by a kittenish maiden.

PS: Not many professions/jobs can be characterised and creativity and initiative unless its the accounts department of a law firm.

Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :

Most of the cops I've known have been relatively sharp about their jobs...I'd say most of the "stupid things" that happened to [some of] them were from momentary lapses, rather than consistent behavior.

****

Pardon me, but..."gormless?" Definition?

Posted by annepin (Member # 5952) on :

quote:
Most people aren't smart. Half of the population has an IQ of 100 or less. It is as unrealistic to people your stories with all smart characters as it is to people them will stupid guards. The important thing is to have the stupid people cause problems for your main character, the way they do in real life, rather than making things easy.

This is an excellent point. So there's a different in making characters real and intelligent, or in using your stupid guards intelligently, any way.

gormless: (chiefly British) lacking intelligence, stupid

Etymology: alteration of English dialect gaumless, from gaum attention, understanding (from Middle English gome, from Old Norse gaum, gaumr) + -less

(from Merriam-Webster)

[This message has been edited by annepin (edited September 20, 2007).]

Posted by RMatthewWare (Member # 4831) on :

I would argue with the most people not being smart. While it may be true, I think a bigger reason for people letting obvious threats by is that they just don't care. Someone once told me that if you're attacked in public you have a lesser chance of getting help. The reason being that everyone else is waiting for the other guy to help. Also, people don't want to get involved. Getting involved means altering your plans, being late for work, getting entangled in an annoying and time-consuming situation.

An officer might let someone who is driving 10 over the speed limit go because he doesn't feel like doing the paperwork for a ticket.

A security guard might not question someone being in a certain area because they don't want the hassle, don't want to deal with someone getting upset with them, or it might interfere with their internet time.

A town guard might not do anything because they're in the shade, they don't get paid enough, etc, etc.

Posted by lehollis (Member # 2883) on :

quote:
Someone once told me that if you're attacked in public you have a lesser chance of getting help. The reason being that everyone else is waiting for the other guy to help.

I feel that's a modern phenomenon that has grown out of large cities and changes in attitudes, including easy lawsuits.

I also feel its something of a myth. Some stories of this happening have been widely publicized and talked about, but for each story where someone wasn't helped, I think there at least an equal number where someone was helped. I've seen a number just this week.

Posted by BoredCrow (Member # 5675) on :

hoptoad, have you ever read "Guards! Guards! by Terry Pratchett? In the dedication, he says:
"They may be called the Palace Guard, the City Guard, or the Patrol. Whatever their name, their purpose in any work of heroic fantasy is identical: it is, round about Chapter Three (or ten minutes into the film) to rush into the room, attack the hero one at a time, and be slaughtered. No-one ever asks them if they wanted to. This book is dedicated to those fine men."

It's an excellent book.

quote:
The important thing is to have the stupid people cause problems for your main character, the way they do in real life, rather than making things easy.

An excellent point, Rick.

Posted by debhoag (Member # 5493) on :

weighing in on Rick Norwood's side, have any of you seen the Washington Post article about how a dozen old missiles were unknowingly picked up by soldiers and transported by air across America, without anyone noticing they had grabbed the nuclear warheads by mistake? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20926465/. Maybe I'll post this under stupid heroes, too. Or, at least, under "Heroes who cannot read the big signs saying "caution, nuclear weapons - 10 x the power of Hiroshima's Fat Boy - do not fly across America."

[This message has been edited by debhoag (edited September 23, 2007).]