You know the "rule" that says you shouldn't make your characters cry very much? If you don't know it, it goes something like this: when your characters cry, they show their grief, and then the reader is less apt to feel grief for your character. Crying is a release of tension for your character, and it works the same for your reader; when the character cries, it releases emotional tension for your reader.

If I've misunderstood the "rule" or explained it incorrectly, by all means, please correct me.

So what do you do when your characters are in a REALLY miserable situation (like a concentration camp) for most of the story and REALLY bad stuff keeps happening to them. I don't want to release the emotional tension of the story by having my characters cry so the reader doesn't have to, but it really doesn't seem right for my characters not to cry when, for example, someone they care about is callously and pointlessly murdered.

Has anybody else run into that problem? How do you handle it?
 

You want the character to show emotion that is real to them and appropriate to the situation. One character may well jam a fork into her leg to avoid crying while one might cry at the fall of a leaf from a tree. When the first finally does break down and cry, assuming she is a sympathetic character, the reader is going to feel it in her gut. When the second cries the reader is going to dismiss it.

Just like exclamation points, crying can be overused as short hand for "this person is really . . ." Generally, if you can find a way to convey the emotion without the tears flowing, the character will seem more real and the writing strong. But there are times when the character does just need to cry.

When my uncle died two years ago, my aunt had a very difficult time accepting it. We went to the funeral parlor for the viewing. I was responsible for getting her there. She held it together in the car. When she saw the casket, she screamed at him to "Wake up." When that didn't work, she grabbed the side of the casket and sobbed, begging him to wake up. It was probably the most painful thing I've ever seen. If I were to use it in a story (and I am sure one day I will, when I can think about it without tears welling in my eyes), and that character didn't cry, the rest of the emotion would be lost. But, because she tried so hard not to cry, when she finally did, it did not relieve the tension. It ripped your heart out.

So, that's the long way of saying, IMHO, that a character can cry but sparingly, when appropriate and after the proper emotional foundation has been laid out.

quote:

---

You know the "rule" that says you shouldn't make your characters cry very much?

---

In some ways, crying seems too easy, but it's ultimately superficial. It doesn't tell us a lot about the character, only that he or she is reacting to a situation. So, while there's nothing wrong with crying itself, if that's all there is, well, it's a bit thin.
 

I also agree that crying is an easy way out for expressing emotion. But if it is natural for the character, then I write it.

I'm curious though. Where did you run into a rule about crying?

[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited December 14, 2007).]
 

It isn't that a character can't cry, it's that the writer has to earn the emotional response the writer desires from the reader.

The writer earns the response not when the writer has a character cry, or scream, or snarl, or display any emotion, for that matter, but when the writer SHOWS how the character got to that emotion or why the character is feeling that way.

The thing to avoid is trying to manipulate the reader through the character, and it's really difficult to explain what that means.

Writers are encouraged to let the reader develop sympathy or identification with the character and then present the situation as the character experiences it. That way, if the character cries or screams or whatever, the reader will already feel the emotion with the character.

If the sympathy or identification is not there, the reader will be put off, at best, and be irritated with the character and the writer (and may want to throw the book at the wall), at worst.

[This message has been edited by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (edited December 14, 2007).]
 

Every time your characters threaten to burst into tears, just ask yourself if it would be more powerful, more moving, and say more about the character if they didn't.

Like: A hardened soldier sits in the middle of a battlefield in its bloody aftermath. A man has just told his girlfriend he's leaving her for another woman. A mother has just told an estranged daughter that she loves her. Someone very close to your MC has died.

A draft of one of the last books I edited had crybabies all over it...and only in one instance (just after the climax) did I look at the computer screen and say, "NOW you can cry."
 

From a social standpoint, it often makes more sense for a character to be angry, or in denial, or any of the other steps before welling up with tears.
 

Also, I just discovered I'm a sexist. I went through my story and found that my female MC cries 14 times and my male MC cries 7 times. And I thought I was a bit of a feminist. Way to reinforce stereotypes, Dave (what I go by everywhere but here).

Both of those numbers will be much lower by the end of this weekend.

 

I challenge you to try and get that number down to one.

Remember, the more tears you have, the more that also devalues the effect of said tears. You don't want your reader numb to tragedy.

You want your words to resonate with the reader...not have him holding out a Kleenex for your MC's.
 

Crying can be a powerful device in a scene if used correctly, as many people have noted.

But, there seems to be dismissiveness toward anything but truly emotional crying. The Drama Queen Syndrome, as Alethea mentioned. But there are honestly people like that. Some of them shallow, yes, but I've known strong people who can't help themselves from crying at times. Culmination of stress, something triggering a past painful memory, being raised in a situation where it's not okay to hold in tears, etc. Just another angle to consider.

And also, while I wouldn't really want to read about an MC breaking into tears every other chapter, a secondary character who caterwauls at apparently insignificant things might be a nice source of annoyance. ;)
 

Yes, I am going to take a hatchet (or possibly chainsaw) to all the crybabies in my story. But then, wouldn't taking a chainsaw to a crybaby would just cause MORE crying?
 

You can also use that blubbering character to contrast or act as a foil for the more stoic one.

Ever see the last episode of Dr. Who with Rose (Billie Piper) in it? They used that contrast very effectively.

Rose gets trapped in an alternate dimension after choosing to stay with the Dr. for the rest of her life. He kills a star (not exactly but he is using the power of the super nova to contact her) so he can say goodbye to her. She is blubbering the entire time. She finally tells him she loves him. He says, "well if this is the last time I'm ever going to talk to you" or words to that effect. Then pauses and says "Rose Tyler, I . . ."
Star goes supernova and he's cut off. She's bawling her eyes out. When they cut back to him, there is a single tear running down his face. The contrast between the two was very moving especially since he's faced the extermination of his entire race and never cried before.

So, again, like every "rule," it is there for a reason and you need to know when to apply it, and when you ignore it you need to know why.

If you've ever seen film footage of concentration camps or POW camps - the people so incarcerated don't spend a lot of time crying, unless it's after "lights out" when they're in bed alone. They go through their days stoically, just doing their best to survive, hopefully with mind and body intact. It's the stoicism of the people in such circumstances that can be so heartbreaking if written well.

I want to know how the characters are feeling, not see what they're feeling. So when my characters do cry, you see a build-up to it, and the "release" crying gives them is in character. Perhaps they've just survived a terrible battle, or saw someone die in some shocking way. Once the shock and anger wear off, tears may or may not come. If they don't come, the character will act out in some fashion, perhaps breaking things or pounding his fist into a wall or something, or just not talking or not eating . . . grief hits everyone differently, although the "five stages" does hold true most of the time.

If someone's going to cry in a book or story, there should be a build-up to it that shows why it's "in character" for this person to react that way. And we should see what he's feeling, we should FEEL what he's feeling, so if he's crying, we're crying too. That, to me, is good writing - I want the readers to feel what my characters are feeling and react right along with them.

JMO.
 

As someone (was it King's Falcon) pointed out, it can be the contrast. Or sometimes it's the culmination. I did a scene where one of my MC's breaks down and cries for I think the only time in that novel. She has in the course of the past 6 chapters literally lost everything in the world, her home, her family, her lover, her position... Finally she is alone on the road, making a mad gallop for a nearby city and she just stops and cries. What can I tell you except that it was right? Then she suffered for a bunch more chapters and never cried again.

But not everyone in life is stoical. So that should be a possibility as well especially as a contrast. A secondary character can express things that you might not let your main character express.

I guess I'm largely against general rules, or at least I believe that you have to learn to break them. Probably like a lot of rules, like only using said in dialogue tags--it can be a good rule until you learn when and how it should be broken.

[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited December 14, 2007).]
 

If a character cries often, even when the situation is sad, then the tears lose power. It's like, "And what else is new?"

But even if a character cries once, the trick is to build up to that moment. Let's say a woman finds out her child is dead. That's powerfully sad and will automatically get some reaction just based on the situation, but if she bursts instantly into tears the moment is over. Use the stages of grief -- shock, anger, denial -- take us through her thought processes as she lets the knowledge sink in. THEN let her cry. I bet the reader will already have teary eyes.

 

I whittled it down to one big climactic cry. I think the story is much stronger now.

You don't even want to know how many tears I had to chop out to get there.
 

I had a story (got published) where the main character faces trials and hardship through the entire story but manages to get himself to safety. And then things go so bad that he believes nothing he can do will get him out of the predicament. I think that this character earned to cry a bit at that point. Of course when he got that out of his system he realized that things are not so catastrophic yet and that he still has the chance to complete his work and save his country from disaster.

In another story I use crying to show the vulnerability and inexperience of my main two characters. When they are experienced and mature to the point of emotional numbness, that's when I want the reader to feel sorry for them. They gave up their humanity to do what must be done.
 

Martin, I'm with you -- I don't believe there are any "rules" when it comes to writing.

But there are definitely things that will cheese an editor off... and it's always good to know your editors before submitting... and chances are, if it's something that makes them mad, it might be something that makes your story weaker.

Only ever change what YOU want to change. But you still have to be open to changing it.

(Okay. Now I sound like Mr. Miyagi.)
 

Telling me "John cried." is a lot like "John got angry." Which is not usually as easy to see as "John smashed the stool against the wall."