posted
Actually, I am already married, but I just had a "My life is ruined" moment. I have spent the last three weeks writing openings for my book (yes, the one I have declared was behind me three or four times previously.) The bitter truth is I don't know how to let the reader care about my MC. It's not a matter of making them care, they wouldn't pick up the book if they didn't want to care. Well, maybe this will be one of those things where admitting I have a problem is the seed of the solution.
posted
I suspect you probably aren't getting deep enough into the POV character's head. Eavesdrop on the character's stream of consciousness. This is key. If you get so far inside the character's head that the reader thinks what the character thinks, and the reader feels the same emotions the character feels, then the reader has no choice but to identify with that character. In fact, many readers will want to BE your character. Readers want to live your character's life by proxy. Your job is to let that happen.
[This message has been edited by Spaceman (edited October 17, 2006).]
posted
It's something that young girls in anime sometimes say in response to weird things, like finding out that they snore or ate too much during the holidays...or are unable to bridge the "sympathy gap".
Realizing you were married, if that weren't already known to you, would be a perfect--if ironic--moment to say it. I'm not sure how well the sentiment translates into English anymore. Is marriage a common ideal of girls in America these days? It might be on par with the ubiquitous storyline about helping a classmate (always a girl, for some reason) escape an arranged marriage. Although that would be another highly ironic time for a girl to say it...I mean, right after finding out that she had an arranged marriage waiting.
"I just found out that I've got to be formally engaged tomorrow. Now I can never marry!"
"Um, that's not the problem here...or rather, maybe it is."
posted
Spaceman has got it. And maybe it's the inherent problem of writing in the first person. I never introduce me to myself. I have a hard enough time even finding opportunity for a physical description. It was just terrifying, for a bit there, to realize that if I didn't solve this problem I can never really finish and story and will therefore never stand any chance of being read by someone who doesn't already know me. And of those people, they are always confused by the fact that everyone's name has been changed to protect their privacy. You know, except the people I deleted for simplicity's sake.
Posts: 366 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
first person doesn't excuse you from getting deep into the character's head. You don't need the physical descriptioin. Anything you don't supply, the reader will supply for you. What the reader can't do is put thoughts into the character's head. That's your job.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my work, I know I care about my characters---but I doubt my ability to make anyone else care about them. (I worked in fanfiction for a few years---but that came with ready-made characters that a ready-made audience already cared about.)
*****
I can never marry either. Sex-ed class ruined me for life.
quote:The bitter truth is I don't know how to let the reader care about my MC. It's not a matter of making them care, they wouldn't pick up the book if they didn't want to care.
I can see why that would be a particular problem for you, because if the reader is anything like me, he will be unable to resist expressing his lack of sympathy for the character by saying, "Franc Li, my dear, I don't give a damn."
::ducking for cover::
There's a book about screenwriting called Save the Cat. The title comes from a section of the book about how to get the audience to care about the protagonist: very early in the movie, you have the protagonist save a cat (figuratively -- or even literally, as was the case in The Incredibles).
Perhaps a similar approach would work to help the reader care about your MC.
posted
Translating that into sympathy building methods, I suppose an important point is to demonstrate that the character and the audience have certain important values in common, and those common values are more important to both than any divergent values that may be explored.
I have to admit, this has always been a bit of an obsticle for me, as my personal values simply don't intersect with any common human values. Come to think of it, that's one of my singular courtship difficulties as well.
I'm curious, Franc Li, why you believe the reader won't care about your MC. Have critiquers indicated a disconnect? Or did you suddenly see your manuscript in a whole new light?
posted
I've posted 3 openings on f&f. I did get one nibble, but was persuaded by all the other responses I needed to find out where the story really begins. To know that, I have to know what the story is. To know that, I have to find out who I expect to read the story. But none of this matters if I can't get someone to be interested in the story.
But I think I'll go with a retrospective frame during the day that "ends" with the final insight of the story. Basically, the MC learns her (fictitious)cousin is going to start taking psychiatric meds and it gets her thinking about her past and whether she is really better or only thinks she's better[edit: better meaning mentally well], and how this relates to the paradox of righteousness and certainty. This last bit of the two Catch-22s just came to me as I was writing yesterday.
Oh, and eric, heh heh.
[This message has been edited by franc li (edited October 24, 2006).]
[This message has been edited by franc li (edited October 26, 2006).]
quote:I have to admit, this has always been a bit of an obsticle for me, as my personal values simply don't intersect with any common human values. Come to think of it, that's one of my singular courtship difficulties as well.
So you're saying you enjoy killing indiscriminately. Yeah, I can see how that would be a problem in courtship.
posted
Hmmm...I don't think that I particularly enjoy killing indiscriminately. I mean, I also like being selective. Nor do I have a particularly fetish for killing slowly, since I also like clean, artistic kills and massive overkills.
And really, I'm pretty sure that a taste for killing isn't a key element of my values disjuncture with humanity. The evidence backs me on this one, humans like killing quite a bit, it's just that the usual reasons behind it are a little different.
Anyway, FL, have you read Lying Awake by Mark Salzman?
posted
You guys are having too much fun in here! But to get back to FL's question . . .
quote: But I think I'll go with a retrospective frame during the day that "ends" with the final insight of the story. Basically, the MC learns her (fictitious)cousin is going to start taking psychiatric meds and it gets her thinking about her past and whether she is really better or only thinks she's better, and how this relates to the paradox of righteousness and certainty. This last bit of the two Catch-22s just came to me as I was writing yesterday.
I'm sorry, but I don't see any reason to care about these people from what you've written here. There's nothing wrong with taking psychiatric meds if you need them. They can make dysfunctional people have a decent quality of life. The fact that your character wonders if she's better or only thinks she's better makes me wonder if she's shallow - her cousin's problem makes her think about herself, not her cousin, which seems self-centered to me, and I already don't like her as a result.
To make the reader care about someone, they have to do something kind, something heroic, something impressive (even if on a small scale) toward someone else - "saving the cat" is a good example. Why should we care about this girl who's more interested in her own problems than anyone else's? I realize there are books (like "Bridget Jones' Diary") that center on a person's own bad opinion of herself, but that story succeeds in the charm of the storytelling and in Bridget's own personal charm. She's self-deprecating but funny about it, which draws people to her (as readers). Are your characters that way, charming and funny as well as self-deprecating? Or what?
Good characters have flaws (they're not perfect), but also have good points. Maybe it would help you to make a list of the characteristics you like about this person and the ones you dislike. Perhaps such a list can help you find a balance that will make her more sympathetic and make readers want to know more about her and her world.
Sorry I haven't read your F&F submission yet - I went there to look at them before posting this message, but couldn't find one from you (and I checked all three pages) - did you list it under another user name?? Reading that should give me a better idea what your characters are like and what you're trying to accomplish with them (right? ).
Hope this is somewhat helpful (although it's not nearly as much fun as some of the other posts here! Sorry about that, I left my funny hat in the car. . .)
posted
I think that having characters question their own righteousness is absolutely essential to creating sympathy. Hmm...they should stop short of openly reveling in being evil, though. That's always my problem. I'm evil, I like being evil, and I don't really see why I should have to hide that. So my characters always have a bit of trouble not being a little too happy about being evil.
The problem with saving the cat is that it's a bit trite. What if you're trying to address a serious philosophical question like "is it really the right thing to save the cat?" Okay, I guess for that particular question saving a cat actually makes a good starting point for the introspection to begin. But for a more general question like "am I really doing the right thing or do I need to be on medication?", I think it's better if the character does things that could be argued either way by reasonable people.
Not that there are no good arguments against saving cats. I just happen to like cats, and if one can be saved as an act of evil, then I'm totally up with that
quote:A word to the inexperienced: If you happen upon a cat stranded on a rock in the middle of a river, don't expect it to leap gratefully into your arms. Moreover, don't expect it to rest reasonably in your palm as you lift it above the chest-high water on the way back.
I'm usually not the type to just go save a cat out of the goodness of my black, shriveled heart. This cat, however, was the property of Mr. Vincentecost's youngest and spoiledest daughter, Jilliana. Mr. Vincentecost was the man with the guns, and I figured two weeks of teenage rancor was worth a few boxes of micro-missiles and a launcher or two. At very least, it should have made the guards think twice about roughing me up as I approached the front door.
posted
D'oh! *smacks forehead* That was a response to Survivor's save-a-cat-for-evil-purposes challenge, not a quote. Posts: 453 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm...but the actual saving of the cat was a benevolent act, right? Sure, it was done for a selfish motive, but that is generally true of anything a "self" actually does.
Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, crap. So you're saying my character has to have it in for the cat? That's a severely restrictive definition of evil, especially since he wanted the launchers and missiles for an attack on a school bus stop. Not that you knew that, of course.
Another attempt, using Survivor's severely restricted definition as a guide:
quote:The traffic buzzed by like a thousand angry wasps, but I had to save the cat. I felt compelled to take it home, set its leg, nurse it back to good health... make it a whole cat. So I braved the traffic, fastened it to my snowboard - a makeshift cat backboard - walked it carefully back from the median, and placed it gingerly in the passenger seat of my car.
I had to do it. How else could I be sure of maximum effect when I tossed it onto the freeway again?
[This message has been edited by trousercuit (edited October 26, 2006).]
posted
Lynda- "better" referred to not mentally ill, and not superior. I guess not everyone is familiar with what "Catch-22" literally refers to. It's been a while since I sort of read it in English class, I'd better check wiki. P.S. I checked and you can find all 3 openings in f&f by searching, leave search term blank, and enter "franc li" in username, and select "show all topics". I guess some people were interested by my first effort, but I can't remember why I abandoned it. I guess because I don't see it as fundamentally a love story.
Heh heh, it describes the titling process, how "Catch-18" was rejected because of Mila 18 and "Catch-11" was rejected because of "Ocean's 11" and
quote:’Catch-14’’ was also rejected apparently because the publisher did not feel that 14 was a ‘’funny number’’.
That's a shame about 18, but I suppose it is more poignant in Uris' title. I'd forgotten about the "four to the fighting fourth." But yeah, "Catch-22" refers specifically to the rule that crazy people don't know they are crazy. By this same logic I'd say that in confessing his evilness, Survivor is about the most trustworthy person I know.
Well, getting back to the discussion of my audience, I think most people who've been treated for mental illness should be able to relate to wondering if accepting treatment messes with "who they are" in some deep way they should be concerned about.
[This message has been edited by franc li (edited October 26, 2006).]
posted
I don't think that Catch-22 applies to evilness. The way I see it, if someone admits to being evil they are at least not particularly good. Although I do remember at least one occasion when somebody told me he was a bad guy in an attempt to persuade me he was a good guy. It didn't work
Besides, Catch-22 doesn't refer to knowing that you're crazy, only to intentionally benefiting from it. You can know you're crazy and still be thought crazy, but if you try and use the fact that you're crazy to get out of a war zone, then you're clearly sane. It's an insane rule because the only reason for letting a crazy person leave the war zone is because they want to stop being crazy.
That distinction may seem like a bit of nit-picking, but it speaks to the fundamental issue of whether it is possible for the insane to want to get better. I've been in a good many situations that temporarily impaired my mental/emotional functioning in one way or another. In all those cases, I recognized that I'd suffered a mental or emotional impairment (that "or" is important because often I'd suffered both but only assessed one). In some of those cases I was a little bit up in the air as to whether I wanted to get "better". Even though that usually involved nothing more than a good night's sleep and a healthy breakfast, I think that it is still a non-trivial form of treatment. One can avoid both for years on end (particularly in a war zone).
As for saving the cat, saving the cat has to be an evil act in and of itself, not one performed in the interest of a later evil act. For instance, you happen to know that the cat is actually possessed by Satan. You are saving the cat from a hero who also knows this and has heroically cornered the cat in a tree. If saving the cat inherently involves harm to the hero, you get a bonus. Particularly if the hero were previously under the impression that you were on the side of good and thus you are betraying your comrade.
For future reference, if any of you happen to corner a satanically possessed cat and are wondering what to do about it...I'm kidding about how I'd betray you and all. Call on my expertise in these matters
posted
That's still not evil in and of itself, as you've defined it, because you're saving the cat in the interest of Satan performing further evil acts.
I think your definition is self-contradictory. Either that, or it can't apply to saving cats. Is there any definition of evil that doesn't rely on intent or further effect? Can any act be evil in and of itself?
posted
Saving cats is always an evil act, for you are saving the very essence and embodiment of pure evil.
Posts: 29 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The prior condition that combat makes you crazy is part of Catch-22, and is analogous to the pride that follows doing something non-evil. It is what the "mormons" call the Nephite cycle. Crap happens, you feel humbled, you do good, you receive blessings, you feel proud, you do bad, crap happens, you feel humbled...
The devil apparently thought this was cruel and an unusual way for people to live out their lives, and wanted to remove a step. Most church members think it is the "you do bad" step but it could also be the "you receive blessings" step or having a concept of good and bad in the first place.
posted
No, I'm opposed to letting Satan run about in the body of a cat. I'd have to go to some trouble to prevent my action from having consequences I'd rather avoid. You're making an unjustified assumption in saying that I'd be doing it for some purpose. I just like the idea of betraying a comrade to save a satanically possessed cat
Or to put it differently, I think that LPMcGill might have my number when it comes to cats.
I think that the fact that combat makes you go crazy is the reason that Catch-22 is insane...but I don't know that it's actually a part of Catch-22. I don't even think that it's part of the entire Section 8 (the fictional version in the novel, I mean). Of course, I don't experience the "Nephite Cycle" in my own life, so that might have something to do with it.
Then again, I'm the kind of person who'll betray a comrade (to whom I'll later have to apologize) to save an evil cat. And yet I love stories about people who are upstanding and never betray their comrades and don't save evil cats. But I'm not so sure those people would like stories about me.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
)
).
