There's this cartoon show I occasionally watch (which one doesn't really matter, 'cause there are lots of shows with similar situations, and it's certain conventions of these that I want to bring up). Anyway, it involves these four preteen friends. They're of diverse backgrounds, ethnic types, and seem to share only a few interests in common. It's even two boys and two girls.
On this show, the characters regularly indulge in activities towards each other that I am forced to regard as friendship-busting. Yet they remain friends.
I know that it's 'cause if they didn't, there wouldn't be a show. But I wonder just how realistic it is.
Do you think it's more realistic for a character to hang out with people with whom he had common interests and concerns? Would a character spend time with someone that different from themselves? Would a character remain friends with someone who expressed or showed a lack of consideration for something vitally important to that character?
Or do the differences make the difference? Does one get by on what one has in common, however little that is?
(Either way, I figure this might get some interesting answers.)
My current close grouping of friends in VA is my Saturday night poker group.
We all have 3 things in common.
1) Sense of humor (though not everyone has the same idea of what's funny, but most of us have some dry humor)
2) None of us are from VA.
3) Almost all of us used to work at the same place. I'm the only one still working at that company.
Some of my friends are vastly different from myself, but that's only because we got to know each other in very isolated conditions.
Well, there's the old adage that opposites attract, and I personally know a lot of cases like that, so there's definitely truth in it.
What I tend to think is that the characters with the inferiority complexes will hang around with a bunch of bad apples 'cause a) they might secretly envy them and wish they were them or b) 'cause it makes them cool by association.
But I'll tell you what else though: you ever done this to a friend, say something like, "Oh, you gotta meet so-and-so, you'll love 'em!" and they do - only they don't. I mean, you get them together and it's a complete clash of personalities; they hate each other, instantly! This, despite the fac that they've got so much in common and they're so alike. My theory is that for these people (especially out-spoken people with big personalities) it's like looking in a mirror when they meet someone supposedly like themselves and suddenly they see all these faults and start to wondering if they, too, have those self same faults. 'Geez, is that what I'm really like?' they think. It gives them doubts and it makes them feel bad, and people like that aren't used to feeling self-conscious. So, instead, they hang out with people totally not like them. It's like the geeks hanging out with the thugs, only reversed: that whole notion of, 'Hey, stand next to me, 'cause you're such a freakin' nerd that you make me look good!"
But the less cynical side to it is simply that opposites compliment each other; your strengths are my weaknesses and vice versa. In a way this workshop kinda works like that: none of us here are professionals, but nevertheless we all benefit here 'cause we have strengths in certain areas of writing where others have weaknesses and, once again, vice versa.
So, no, I don't think these kinds of relationships really are all that unbelievable.
Also, baselines always misunderstand what's really important to an exception.
The case of "outspoken types" is a good example. An outspoken person doesn't necessarily care about being outspoken for the sake of being outspoken. That should be obvious, but to some people it isn't. Many outspoken people would prefer to be introspective and quiet, but they see a pressing need for someone to speak out on the various issues they care deeply about.
I have a pretty quiet personality, myself. My native preference is to deflect any form of interaction with humans as far as possible. But most people regard me as "outspoken" without understanding that it's simply not part of my personality.
The point of all this is that often you see totally unrealistic portrayals characters that simply reflect a very limited understanding on the part of the author.
And sometimes...it's just a cartoon.
Stories seek to have a balance of characters, which is why people tend to like the Original Star Trek series better than Deep Space Nine. Unless they are a Deep Space Nine type of a person.
Then there is the whole "you complete me" thing that I would say is bogus if I didn't see it played out over and over in real life.
But I was in a clique in high school. I think we had pretty similar personalities but we were physically dissimilar. We would have made a great Anime show.
Of course, I can observe this process at my current job. Seems to me the sames hang out with the sames. The [insert ethnic type of your choice] hang out with the [insert same here]. The foulmouthed hang out with the foulmouthed. The deaf hang out with the deaf. (I am a group of one and hang out with myself.)
I can't say how much any of them hang out outside of work, if at all.
There is a REASON most of us don't still hang out with our high-school friends. Those broad interests were not enough to carry into adulthood, particularly as our own interests change.
I have a handful of extremely close friends, only one of whom I knew in high school (male). Of my close friends, the issue that determines how "close" we are is how "real" we are. My best friend is someone I regularly discuss spirituality with, inner reflection, and how our jobs and families impact with our spiritual lives. We also share a lot of common interests as well, but there are gaps in what we know about each other, mainly because we don't spend a lot of time talking about non-essential surface stuff. I'd known her well for over ten years before I knew what her favorite color was, or that she didn't like grapefruit. That stuff just didn't seem important and it never came up!
Having common interests and beliefs are only part of the equation. Having some core moral values in common is a greater factor (for me). Honesty in relationships, having deep respect for one another, a sense of humor, flexibility to allow the other person to make a mistake from time to time, excitement for their growth and personal milestones.... these are the core values that create tight friendships that can withstand the rigors of life.
[This message has been edited by Elan (edited September 10, 2005).]
A "quest group" or whatever often has at least one "loner" and sometimes a distinct "*******" character (in this case the "loner" helps the team but doesn't tend to accept help, while the other character constantly demands help but doesn't contribute anything). The thing is, the members of the quest group aren't there to be friends with each other, they're there to pursue a quest. Sometimes the loner or the ******* ends up changing type and becoming friends with the rest of the group, sometimes not.
Friendships are different. They aren't strictly utilitarian relationships. Even I know that much.
It is possible -- but takes a little work.
I'm concerned with this from a fiction writer's viewpoint. Say I put a diverse group of characters together for a story. How did they get together in the first place? What would keep them together long enough to keep the story going? Does this seem realistic enough to be believable?
Oh, of course, I could put them in a situation where they're forced to stay together, say, a stagecoach being pursued by hostile Indians...but that's not quite the situation I've been talking about. Suppose I need them to have been friends? Suppose I need them to stay friends?
Another TV situation comes to mind. (I'm a child of the TV generation.) The kids are a little older, late high school. I remember watching the show, early on in its run, and thinking that what the characters were doing was kind of "sorting their friendships." They were assessing their friends and friendships, and seeing which ones were worth keeping and which ones weren't, which friends could be counted on and which friends couldn't, which friends were friends and which ones were jerks.
What might the motivation be?
Perhaps there is a need for rejection, a pattern requiring fulfillment. The familiar may be the lesser of evils imagined.
Archetypes assist us in understanding the broad strokes of the experiential soup we dine on. It is the subtlety of individual accomodation which invokes the Duende.
In a conflict that is not quickly settled with the destruction or subjugation of either party, it can be difficult to disengage without heavy risk. If you know/suspect that another person is really trying to do you in, it doesn't make sense to run till you're sure you can actually get away successfully. So it's very natural to hunker down and fight a trench war.
I don't usually have that problem myself, but not everyone is a proponent of tactical mobility over all else.
I was speaking of people who associate as friends, are not enemies, and yet sabotage each other, do each other damage, perhaps subconciously.
quote:
There is a scenario I have not yet seen addressed in this thread; two characters do not like each other, subtly sabotage each other with a cruelty encroaching on invisibility, yet they continue to associate.
Boredom with everything and everyone else keeps them together.
quote:
two characters do not like each other, subtly sabotage each other with a cruelty encroaching on invisibility, yet they continue to associate.
What might the motivation be?
Maybe they are related and HAVE to associate. Or there is a common job to do that forces them into association. And politics makes strange bedfellows, as they say.
[This message has been edited by franc li (edited September 12, 2005).]
I might not know a lot about friendship, but I know all about having enemies
quote:
There is a scenario I have not yet seen addressed in this thread; two characters do not like each other, subtly sabotage each other with a cruelty encroaching on invisibility, yet they continue to associate.
I'm not sure how cruel the sabotage needs to be to address your question, but it makes me think of the two Lucilles on Arrested Development. They're both socialites, so much of their association/competition is based on that. And the fact that they live across the hall from each other.
(BTW, I absolutely love that show even though I've only seen the first season on DVD. 
)
Others have mentioned The Lord of the Rings, where the crucible is a quest, but I believe this is a weak example. The characters in TLotR could walk away from their crucible except for their super-human devotion to duty. American literature gives us many stories where more realistic characters confront each other in an inescapable crucible.
Think of The Sea Wolf where the crucible is a ship. The relationship between Humphrey van Weyden and Cookie is a perfect example of two characters with natural contempt for each other who would love to escape each other's company, if only they could.
Think of The Godfater where the crucible is a family. No matter what the characters do, and these characters do many awful things, they will always remain members of their own family. Even death cannot get them out of this crucible.
Think of To Kill a Mockingbird where the crucible is the post-reconstructionist culture of the South. None of the characters wants the story to turn out the way it does, but they can't escape the story because they won't abandon their culture. Even Bob Ewell, the villain, is trapped in the story by this culture.
I believe the best stories have protagonist characters in conflict with each other. But no writer can achieve this realistically if the characters can simply walk away from each other. If you want your characters to engage in "friendhip-busting activities" yet "remain friends," you have two choices:
1) Write an unrealistic story that most readers will quickly forget.
2) Trap your characters in some kind of inescapable crucible.
[This message has been edited by Doc Brown (edited September 16, 2005).]
[This message has been edited by Doc Brown (edited September 16, 2005).]
I always thought the odd man out, as far as friendship / fellowship went, was Boromir...and, come to think of it, he was the one who fell out of the story.
Did the four of you get nothing about writing from my message? You are acting like a bunch of fantasy nerds.
The original question might devolve into one of "How epic must my story be to hold together characters as conflicting and diverse as the ones I want to portray?"
No matter how mundane or exotic the setting, one of the glues which holds the characters together will be their personality flaws. So how believable and compatible are these flaws? Remember the two men in "Of Mice and Men"? The story would not have worked if both men had been idiots nor would it have worked if they had both been normal. It only worked with one obligated to take care of the other.
[This message has been edited by keldon02 (edited September 17, 2005).]
I'm not claiming to have gotten anything out of Doc's message, nor are I claiming to not be a fantasy nerd. I'm just saying that "remain friends" does not equate to "continue to associate". A relationship can be antagonistic or even neutral and involve none of the defining characteristics of friendship other than being interpersonal and persistent.
Which brings to mind the need to clarify how such relationships change with time.
[This message has been edited by keldon02 (edited September 18, 2005).]
Your average sitcom / cartoon / whatever won't have that, though. A bunch of guys hang out because something brings them together. They work together / they go to school together.
A strong friendship can become a crucible. A strong crucible can weld a new friendship.
But if you have a bunch of characters who constantly annoy each other and are not trapped in some sort of crucible then their friendship is unrealistic.
And like I said, often people constantly annoy each other because they are enemies rather than friends.