*nodnod* yep. GoT is a good example of going too far one way. on one hand it totes has me on the edge of my seat waiting to see if my favs will survive each episode or not (never read the books, and only watched up to the end of season 3, so please no spoilers!) and thankfully almost all of my favs have survived so far! *happy dance* but I will also agree with Dru that if there's no apparent danger (when it comes to suspense/adventure stories) a lot of the drama is lost. but I have to ask, Seracen... what do you mean by a death for shock value, and what do you mean by characters who are caricatures? can you give me examples? I mean, I know what a caricature is, but I'm trying to think of where it would apply in a movie or story I know... *ponders*
I'm not really sure where I fall on the character death issue, since I mostly read romance type stories. *frowns* if someone dies in a romance story, there's almost always a purpose for it, and I'm not really sure shock value would apply. but I am writing a clue/cluedo fic where I plan to kill off a lot of people. like... a lot a lot. and I think I may write my walking dead story idea after all, now that I've played the games and concluded that their story and my idea are different enough. but both stories would contain deaths and I'd like to get an idea of where on the fence my plans fall between meaningful and shock value. sadly my big idea for the walking dead story might fall into the shock value category. when I came up with the idea I was thinking it would be heartbreaking and poignant and emotional and then later very very tragic, but... it may have a certain shock value element to it. *pout*
Firstly, the fact that you want it to be "heartbreaking and poignant and emotional and then later very very tragic" excludes you from "shock value" territory, so I wouldn't be too concerned about it. Also, this is simply my definition, different people have different styles, and they appeal to different readers. Write what you like, let the rest take care of itself...those were simply my personal definitions for why I do certain things.
As for caricature...that's a much simpler definition...and it can be answered in a few simple questions:
1) does the character have an arc?
2) how long does it take for this arc to occur?
3) would the character react differently to a situation before their arc, as opposed to the end?
Let's take, for example, Kratos from God of War. His arc occurred before the games, back when his family was alive. So in the games, we get this engine of revenge, who is completely unsympathetic, and has no other purpose. It was actually refreshing to play such a vile character, who ends up winning and potentially attaining some measure of contentment.
However, we also got all the sequels and prequels...where Kratos is LITERALLY the same animal he always was...and I do mean ANIMAL. Let's consider God of War 3, as my favorite example. Remember, first, that Kratos is motivated by the death of his family, for whom he seeks revenge. Now, of course, we realize that they would consider him a monster, if they were alive to see Kratos do these things...but he fails to realize that he is doing the same thing to others. I could accept it if Kratos realized he was a monster, and no longer cared, but the game continues to play it straight, as if he were a hero...
1) he kills an innocent handmaiden, who was little more than a slave, all so he can pass by a puzzle
2) he sacrifices his newfound daughter-figure, despite fighting Zeus over her...then proceeds to blame Zeus for his own actions in killing yet another innocent
3) they magically turn Hercules and Perseus, who mythology buffs love, into random enemy bosses (though they remain more honorable than the "hero")
4) he starts killing ALL the gods...thereby destroying the freaking world...ignoring that he has visited a worse fate upon countless families like the one he once had
Who's he even trying to revenge himself upon, and for whom? Again, I would have respected the story more if he were just a straight up villain. He is no longer a character, he is instead a caricature , a mindless rage-beast that can do little more than scream "REVENGE" every two seconds.
Or consider Watch_Dogs. I mentioned Aiden Pierce already, and he has no actual CHARACTER. He is merely a cypher for the player to act through. He has no defining characteristics, and all side characters exist merely to die or be in danger, so he can further revenge himself upon the enemy. As soon as they have served their purpose, however, these side characters are gone (whether through death or flight). But their "sacrifice" is meaningless because Aiden hasn't LEARNED anything. He hasn't gone through an arc, he hasn't changed, he hasn't even forged any meaningful relationships...simply acquaintances and a trail of dead bodies.
For shorthand on what caricatures are: consider EVERY ACTION MOVIE EVER! For the most part, they are less characters and more caricatures...Arnold, Stallone, Van Damme, Norris...sometimes Bruce Willis, always Steven Seagal...the list goes on and on. That isn't to say they can't be fun...but I don't take "Tango & Cash" or "Total Recall" nearly as seriously as I would "Blade Runner." I am expecting different things out of "Three Musketeers," as opposed to "Les Miserables," (or a near space-opera, such as Mass Effect). Arnold without that camp-factor would be boring, stale, and devoid of heart (though Conan remained compelling despite the straight-laced brutality, and it at least had the semblance of an arc for the characters, more so in T2).
Conversely, a good character learns from these things, has impact on others' lives (beyond property damage), and is impacted by others (beyond doing something he/she would have anyways). For example, one could argue that Shepard before ME1 would make very different choices from Shepard after ME3. The actions of Master Chief (Halo) and Gordon Freeman (HL2) were COMPELLING...I actually felt a connection to these (mostly) silent protagonists...more so than I did with Kratos or Aiden. Why? Because of the meaningful impact they had on others, and how the story and characters reacted to them.
(NB: "HOW" the side characters reacted, not simply "THAT" they did so).
Dumas is my fave classical author, and the Count of Monte Cristo is constantly changing throughout the course of his story. Edmond Dantes' reactions to the same situation would change depending on whether we were referring to the Edmond Dantes from the beginning, middle, or end of the story.
As for what "makes a good character," and separates them from caricature, that is an age old question, and one that each author/reader must answer for themselves, I feel. Sorry for yet another rant, but I appreciate the question, and hope it provides food for thought!
Retour en haut
SOOO much world building and character sheets of late. Then again, I am in that ironically fertile state of mind, where story IDEAS are more prevalent than actual scenes. Thankfully, that usually changes once I begin the writing proper.
