The Elizabeth Bennets

- a post by Jeanna Mason Stay

Last night I dreamed I was watching Pride and Prejudice (the BBC version with Colin Firth of course) but something was different. I discovered that BBC had filmed two versions of the movie, and the only difference was that in the version I was watching, Elizabeth Bennet was much more sedate, much more proper. Essentially she was a lot more like Jane.

Recently the ladies of my book club and I were talking about the characters of Jane Austen. My good friend Elissa pointed out that the popularity of Pride and Prejudice over the other Austen novels was probably largely because Elizabeth Bennet most closely suits our modern notions of what a heroine should be—outspoken, vibrant, unwilling to marry just to suit society.*

This had never occurred to me, but I realized that she was probably right. Who else can compare to Elizabeth? The Dashwood sisters? No, Marianne is too histrionic, Elinor too reserved. Emma? A busybody. Who’s not even very good at being a busybody. Catherine Morland—amusing, but in real life wouldn’t you just kind of want to smack her upside the head and tell her to stop reading Stephen King novels?** Anne Elliot is such a shrinking violet that I had to look up her name because I couldn’t remember it. And Fanny Price is very, very moral—which is sort of out of favor these days too (she’s also a shrinking violet).***

I have now, I’m sure, completely insulted your favorite Austen novel and/or heroine. Trust me, I realize that they all have more depth than just the one character trait I pointed out. And I have liked many of them for various reasons (and I really need to give at least one of them another chance). But, as we discussed at my book club, most of their characters—while holding up very well in the society they would have lived in—have major traits that conflict with modern ideas about leading ladies.

And that, my friends, was a major sidetrack from the original point of this blog post. So now let’s get back to the dream.

Watching the new Elizabeth Bennet in my dream, I realized that I still liked her this way, although she didn’t have quite as much sparkle. Her backbone still came through, but her personality was not as big. I would love to see this movie version in actual person, not just in my dreams.****

Well, okay, I’m not going to get that wish, but it did occur to me: What if I took a character I was working with and completely revised one or two of her/his strongest characteristics? Turn down the humor dial, crank up the grumpiness knob (I envision character traits on a really old staticky radio). How would it change the story and how people reacted to them—both characters within the novel and also readers without?

So that’s my advice/suggestion for the fortnight.***** Are you stuck in a story? Are you bored with it? Or is it just fine, but maybe it needs a bit more sparkle? Turn those character knobs, people. Just for fun.

(Alternately, you could just go on an Austen binge. But that probably won’t help with your writing.)

* Okay, let’s be honest, the popularity of P&P also probably has a large bit to do with a certain Colin Firth.
** Or, you know, Ann Radcliffe. Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.
*** Fanny Price is, in fact, so morally upright that when they made Mansfield Park into a movie (the 1999 version), they decided to dispense with her strict morals and have her make a decision that the original character would never have made. Just so the rest of us can feel better about our bad decisions, I suppose?
**** Do you think it’s too much to ask to create a time machine, go back to when it was first filmed, and ask BBC to do two versions instead of just one? I bet if Peter Jackson had directed it, he’d be willing. 
***** Fortnight! Austen would be proud.

Embrace Your Antagonist!!

by Jewel Leann Williams, www.jewelleannwilliams.com

Stephen R. Covey said it in his book SEVEN HABITS OF HIGHLY EFFECTIVE PEOPLE:

            Seek first to understand, then to be understood.

Of course, the late Dr. Covey didn’t mean it how I’m about to use it. This is, after all, a writer’s website, not a Franklin Planner seminar. So, what do I mean, “seek first to understand?”

I’m talking about your antagonist. First, let me throw another adage at you—

“Vice is a monster of so frightful mien
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”

                                    Alexander Pope

            So, with regards to the writing…. what do these two things have in common? Well, since I already said I’m talking about your antagonist, what I propose is to really, really get inside the head and heart of your bad guy.

            I’ve actually been playing with the idea of writing my next story from the point of view of my antagonist FIRST, sort of as a pre-write, THEN writing it from the point of view of the protagonist. Then I stopped playing as I realized that I can’t even get a paragraph in any of my WIP’s written at all, let alone “pre-write” and silly things like that.  

C'mon, give 'em a big ol' HUG!!!

            But, think about it. If you write from first person, from your antagonist’s point of view, you can really see, feel, hear, taste, touch, love, hate—all of those emotions that we usually only reserve for our main character—doing it for your bad guy will not only deepen your portrayal of him, but also allow you to play with your readers a little. I don’t mean that in a bad way, either. I remember some of the books and stories that disturbed me the most were the ones where I invested my emotions in a character or event and then had that turned on its head, making me realize how flawed I was. The best example of that for me was “The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson. I still feel icky as I recall being caught up in the excitement of the town’s preparations for the yearly ritual. “Lottery in June, corn be heavy soon.” The whole story is one of anticipation, and I couldn’t wait to see who won. Then BOOM. The lottery was to see who the town would stone to death. I had been excited about that. I felt complicit in the murder. Like I said, the story, the cautionary tale about the dangers of conformity, has stuck with me for my entire life, mainly because of how it made me feel.

            Would your story be well served by the reader identifying with the bad person, even just a little? Some stories really wouldn’t—but some would. When you want your antagonist to really be able to toy with the protagonist, have him toy with the reader. Have your audience AGREE with him, ROOT for him, and then drop the bomb—it will resonate, deeply.

            Even if your story doesn’t need that sort of turnabout, really understanding your antagonist can help you to see different facets of your protagonist—you can see him through the eyes of his enemy. Often we, as the creators of the story’s hero, tend to want to make him or her perfect. We may overlook flaws, or at least minimize them, like we would with our children, or our friends. Having the unvarnished, snarky, cruel truth exposed will allow you to see your protagonist’s little cracks and chinks, those things that make them real. Those “evil” insights will deepen your characterization.

            I hope I’m inspiring ways that you can get to know your antagonist—and reasons why you should. I love those stories where the bad guy is sooooooo good at being bad, and I suspect that the authors of those books really dive deep into learning who the antagonist really is, as much as they do their protagonist.

            It’s like I always say, “The bad guy is the protagonist in their own story.” (Really. I do say that. There’s even a story involving devil horns and red fuzzy handcuffs to illustrate how that’s MY saying. Ask me about it sometime.)            

            Do you have any great ideas for how to understand your antagonist better, or thoughts on how to use that understanding to further your plans to conquer the world write a better story? 

Characterization: Who Cares?

Have you ever read a book where you feel like you don't really care about the protagonist(s) by the time you finish (or don't) the story?

Have you ever written a character that makes you want to scream, "Who cares?"

There is a very basic principle in the art of characterization.  In a very awkward, wordy way, you could say it like this:

It doesn't matter what your character cares about, if you don't care about your character.

Okay, so an interesting philosophy.  But how do you apply it to your writing?

One possible approach is to look at the reactions of your character to the event in the story.  If your story is rushing through the action of a scene, but we never see it from the emotional, physical and intellectual viewpoint of a unique POV character, than we don't have anything to connect with in the story.  The natural reactions of the character are what allow us to connect.

So, every key or crucial moment in a scene needs an internal reaction from your character.  

Not every moment:

 (if the hero unlocks a door with a key, we don't need every intimate detail of that moment unless it is crucial),

...but the ones that move the story ahead:

 (if the villain is on the other side of the door ready to pounce, we need to feel any pain or emotional horror resulting from being surprised or ambushed - not just have the actions of the event described).

It's just like that science law: action = reaction

When my kids scrape their knee or pinch their finger in a drawer, they don't come to me first with a tale of what happened - its always preceded with their reaction of hurt or pain.  First the ouch, then the explanation.  And as parents, we care about the emotion. We care that our child hurts, then we want to know why.  If it were the other way around, we'd have to muster some sympathy for the drawer.  Or the sidewalk.

Are You Dressing Up Your Characters?

The other night I was rifling through the dress-up bin, looking for a potential Halloween costume for my two-year-old son.  When I found this elephant costume, it seemed like the perfect thing - just his size, simple, warm and ready to go.  And then I asked him to try it on.

If you can read his body language, you might guess what he thought of that idea.

Apparently dressing up is not his thing.

I recently read Stephen King's memoir On Writing.  One of the ideas he presents really got me thinking about the way I approach characterization in my writing.  I've always believed that truly profound characters have the ability to be autonomous, or think and act for themselves.  I may have one idea for how they interact with the plot of my story, but they have a completely different plan.

I know it may sound a little crazy, but there are even times I've had to wait for characters to name themselves.

Well, in King's book, he discusses the importance of honesty in writing.  He acknowledges that characters, situations, plot lines and other aspects of our work may not always match up with the status quo, or our own worldview, and, as he points out, that's okay.  In fact, it's much better if we dispel with our own notions and allow our characters to portray who they really are.

We can dress them up, but that doesn't make our writing stronger.

So in honor of October 31st, remember - it's okay to let your children parade around the neighbourhood dressed-up for Halloween.  But let your characters be themselves - your writing will be better for it.

"Crazy Uncle Joe"

One essential thing to good stories are interesting characters. Especially the lead. So, my question to you is: What makes a character interesting?

Is it their profession? Is it their past experiences? Their personality?

What if you want your main character to be an every day, average Joe? Will that, then, not make a good story?

Think of one of your favorite books and tell me: What makes the MC interesting to you?

I'll start. Jane Austen's "Sense and Sensibility" is full of interesting characters. What makes the two main sisters interesting, though, is how they react in contrast to each other. (The one sensibly, and the other not.)

So... maybe what makes a character interesting is the way in which it relates to the story being told? For example, a cop might not be an interesting character in, say, a story about fairies... but would definitely be a more interesting character in a crime-thriller.

I'd love to hear your thoughts and observations!

Bringing Characters to Life

I love character based fiction. In my opinion, every story should center around compelling characters. The characters are what make a story great. For example, we admire Edward Cullen for his goodness, we despise Voldemort for his evilness, laugh with C3PO because of his quirky nature.

We have to feel like we have a relationship with the characters in the book if we’re going to care about their story. For example, you may hear that some kid in Ohio has cancer and think Oh, that’s sad. But that may be the end of it. But what if that kid was your neice… or your daughter? Then you’d know how she loves to play Littlest Pet Shop, how sweet she is with her baby brother, and how scared she is of death. She’d mean something to you, and it would wrench your heart out to lose her.

Do any of us feel this way with our characters? In my WIP, I have created a love triangle. This was very painful for me to do, because I knew, in the end, my MC would have to choose one of them—which meant losing the other. I loved both of the characters so much that it hurt me to let either of them go. My hope is that my readers will feel just as attached.

My question to you is, how do you build your characters? How do you decide which character would fit a story best? Does it just come to you in the night? Or do you meticulously plan it all out? Or maybe a little of both?

How do you “get to know” your characters well enough that they start speaking to you? How do you make them real?