What is the most important part of any story?
That's debatable. But some would arguably suggest that it is the cast of characters. After all, it is their journey that leads the plot, their traits that draw the reader in, and their flaws that make the story worthwhile.
Right?
Right or wrong, let's delve into the development of a good character. The Dramatis Personae for any book typically has a protagonist, which is usually the main character, the "good guy", in layman's terms. There is also an antagonist, which would be the character that acts in opposition to the protagonist. Usually a villain, but not always. Sometimes the antagonist is acting on their own morals and judgment, fully believing themselves to be in the right, and they aren't always evil. Sometimes the antagonist in a story isn't a person at all, but a problem.
Besides these two, you have a smorgasbord of supporting characters. Secondary, tertiary, and the rabble of background characters that usually exist as plot foils or comic relief. A general rule of thumb: if you name a character, they'd better be important to the plot!
For this post, I'm going to focus on what is referred to as the MC, or Main Character, and the Antagonist.
In most books, there is usually one Main Character. But not always. Sometimes you'll have a pair, or a small group of characters working in concert. We'll start the discussion with a single main character.
So, what makes a good MC? I'm going to borrow a few anecdotes from Hollywood, here. Television has time constraints that authors don't have to worry about- at least, not as much- so they have to introduce and flesh out their characters very quickly.
Think about the glory days of the old black-and-white TV superheroes. Superman, Batman, etc. These were gorgeous, muscle-bound guys with gentle, unassuming secret identities, with few flaws and an infinite capacity for sorting out thorny problems within less than half an hour. Not exactly the most relatable, but lovable all the same.
Over time, we've gotten bored with the image of the idealistic "flawless hero". They're not real, relatable, or even interesting anymore. These days, consumers of visual and written media want a hero that is real, gritty, flawed, and can yank your emotions all over the spectrum by the time the story is done. You want a main character that makes you want to cheer for them, yet you get mad at them at least once, you feel sorry for them, you're frustrated with how utterly dense they can be, then in the end, you want to feel like they've earned their happy ending. If their happily-ever-after comes too easily, you've failed as a writer. Current iterations of the above-mentioned superheroes have gotten reasonably adept at creating the flawed "normal guy forced into the role of a hero" trope.
At times, this can be overdone. Some plotlines may seem so utterly unrealistic, some backstories so unbearably tragic, it is clear that the writer is trying too hard to win the sympathy of the audience. This will backfire. You want your audience to root for the good guy, of course. But you don't want your audience to feel like they've had the backstory shoved down their throats. The overarching goal for a good main character is that you want your reader to actually care about the MC and their success, but you want them to be satisfied that it is well-deserved.
One example I could cite would be Flynn from the Disney movie "Rapunzel", one of a pair of MCs. We are nearly halfway through the movie before we find out his story, and it takes some time for the damsel-not-in-distress-thank-you to drag it out of him. He is very light with details, giving a one-liner that sums up his childhood, then immediately segues into talking about his inspiration. A book, a beloved collection of tales that he read with other orphans, with a hero that he decided to emulate in his own twisted, desperate way. You get the sympathy without the sappiness. There's also a lot of nuance that is not immediately stated, but implied. For an orphan, he is surprisingly strong. He also shows a certain amount of deep integrity for a thief. He certainly could have made better life choices, but when it comes down to making a choice between Rapunzel and his own self-interest, he chooses her.
Now, when we consider the possibility of a group of main characters, this can be a tricky balance. You want each member of the group to have their own backstory and personality, but you don't want the story bogged down by the weight of their stories to the detriment of the actual plot. You also don't want to give so little information, the various group members all blend together, difficult to discern, let alone care about. You will have to balance the need to differentiate them against the need to avoid making any one of them stand out too much.
Another trope that bores audiences is a group of main characters that get along too well. You might have a love story between two of them, you might have a love triangle, you could have lifelong enemies forced to cooperate to defeat an even scarier third party. You can throw together a group of strangers, you can send lifelong friends on a journey that tests the fabric of their friendship to the point of destruction. Any of these can be worthwhile. But never, ever make the mistake of creating a group that works well together with no problems. Conversely, there is a balance of not wanting to create too much turmoil. Inter-character strife can overshadow the end goal of their journey, confusing the reader and making them have to think a little too hard. Unless that turmoil is the primary problem to be solved. But don't confuse the two.
Let's flip the paradigm and discuss the antagonist. This can range from "wronged and vengeful" to "outright evil destroyer of anything and everything that gets in the way of his quest for power and ultimate victory".
I'll use an example from my own books for this one. In my book Gladiator, the primary antagonist, Thaddeus Estrella, is the leader of an obsessive religious group known as the Order of the Orion Light. We don't learn a lot about the group in the first book, but in conversations with other characters, he references wrongdoing by the primary governmental group in the story, the Polaris Alliance. These wrongs include the death of innocents, suppression, and torture. He states that he was tortured himself, many times. Most of the characters in this book believe him to be evil and deluded, but the few glimpses we get of him imply that he not only believes that he is fully in the right, but thinks that the war he fights, the war that has destroyed so much of the planet, is his way of actually saving the world. He doesn't see himself as the bad guy, and yet he fully regrets the pain it has caused.
Giving a villain a believable and sympathetic backstory can make for a much more satisfying ending for readers. Especially if the main character is made aware of that backstory, and has the agonizing decision of how to deal with the problem. In this book, the main character, Anya Lee, doesn't really care about winners or losers, she simply wants to solve the problem of ending the war in the most expeditious manner possible. She decides to view Estrella as the "enemy" simply because he is more likely to continue the battle until he wins, no matter the cost.
On the other end of the spectrum, we have true villains who are pure evil, whose actions are driven by nothing better than their own selfish, insane drive for power. A prime example would be Lord Voldemort, from Harry Potter. He grew up as an orphan, and yet, from the few examples we have, his childhood doesn't seem to have been particularly abusive or tortuous. There is a reference to a visit to the seaside, which would certainly be a treat for kids of that era. From what little we are told, including an anecdote about something that he did to other orphans from his orphanage, it would seem that he was just a badly behaved kid from the get-go. As he grows older, discovering his magical power, and starts attending school to develop it, his desire for power over others increases and is turned to tragic and horrific ends. He turns a basilisk loose on the non-magical children in the school, he murders innocent people in his quest for immortality, and he tortures his own followers to ensure their obedience.
What makes a good villain? There are a few facets to this. One, you have to have a believable reason for the villain to act as they do against the protagonist. In Harry Potter, it's fairly obvious. Voldemort wanted ultimate power, and for a time, Harry was a seemingly insurmountable obstacle to that, to the point that Voldemort was nearly destroyed.
In Gladiator, it is not quite as obvious, but still believable. Estrella wants to save the world, Anya Lee and the Alliance are direct obstacles to his goal. He wants those obstacles removed, he wants to know how the Gladiator program works, so that he can turn it to his own ends, but his goals are not out of an evil desire to destroy.
A second factor is a certain complexity to the reader's reaction to the villain. Having a villain that they just hate, with no other emotions, is fine for a video game. Not so for a book. It is my opinion, right or not, that the reader should at some point feel at least a little bit sorry for the antagonist. Whether or not they deserve it is another matter.
A third factor is how they interact with the others in the book. Whether it be their own henchmen, or how they use the MCs associates against them. "No man is an island" is certainly true, and you don't want the villain to be so overly powered that they need no one else to achieve their ends. That, again, falls into the "predictable and therefore boring" category.
Now, in the case of the antagonist, there might not be an actual being at all. For example, in The Neverending Story, the primary antagonist is "The Nothing", which is a vast and seemingly mindless entity that seeks to destroy the world. Of course, this entity is metaphorical in nature, but it presents a different category of "antagonist". One that is a "problem to be solved" rather than a "person to be defeated". These don't have to be mutually exclusive. There are other minor villains in The Neverending Story that must be defeated along the way to solving the ultimate problem of defeating The Nothing. Using a Problem as the primary antagonist, with or without a Person, can add some variety and interest to a story that makes it less predictable and more satisfying for a reader. After all, what's more fun for a reader than watching a hero fight against a villain that they can't even see?
In a successful book, the interplay between the Main Character and the Villain must be engaging, interesting, and believable, without being predictable. For an author, there are a number of ways to achieve this, not least being the use of the other characters in the dynamic. We will discuss these in a future post. But in the end, the primary goal should be: we want the good guy to win, but we don't want it to be too easy for them.
Happy writing!
No comments:
Post a Comment