Disney: Of Motivation, Maturity, and "Mulan"

A short note of clarification: "Disney Princess" here refers to the brand, not the characters specifically. Although most of them are in some way related to or are a member of royalty, the "Princess" brand encompasses most of Disney's female heroines, excluding mainly anthropomorphic females like Maid Marian from Robin Hood and Nala from The Lion King, and characters from low-grossing films, such as Princess Eilonwy from The Black Cauldron.


With that in mind, when I mention the words "Disney princess" and "complex motivation", I suppose most of you expect me to expose my fangs and fly for the jugular with a bloodcurdling screech fit to shatter all porcelain teacups, glittery tiaras and sing-songs concerning belief in dreams. As one for whom the nostalgia goggles do not heavily distort my view of the Disney franchise - especially the early films, many of which I never saw until I was much older than the target demographic - the "Disney Princess" brand is one of my least favourite childhood entities.

In light of this, you might be somewhat surprised to learn that one of my all-time favourite Disney films is one of the classic "Princess" films.

However hardened and bitter I may appear, I actually love many Disney films, old and new. The stories are classic, the animation is timelessly gorgeous, and heck, I'll admit to loving many of the characters as well today as I do then. However, especially with the older films, I do have a major bone to pick with the "Princess" films in particular.

Motivation. Or, rather, lack thereof.

The female characters who were presented as leads to Disney films were utterly uninteresting. Everything about them is summed up in their opening musical number - they were young and beautiful, often orphans, and they wanted nothing more than to escape their boring mundane existence by finding true love, marrying a handsome prince,  and riding off into the sunset. And what happened to them? They did just that.

You can see where the flaw is instantly: these women are solely motivated by a personal desire for "true love".

To be fair, love is a powerful and valid motive - it's a huge part of human life and existence, and its power is undeniable, as well as realistic and compelling when handled correctly. But love works best as a motive when it has something tangible to connect to it, or at least other motivating factors working alongside it.

The problem with most of the Disney princesses is that this is not the case - they have no other defining features other than their desire for love, and they have no other short-term goals or interests to flesh them out in order to compensate for the somewhat wishy-washy motivation. Thus, you have the much-maligned archetype as we know today, bleeding into subculture as the mother of unimportant love interests, token females, sexist portrayals of women and Mary Sues the world over.

So how could I, ostensibly the bipedal ball of wrath that would seek the annihilation of all films containing so much of a whiff of the Disney Princess formula, hold one of them so dear to me?

Because this film is different. Its name is Mulan. And I think it's easily the best of the classic Disney films.

We all know what Mulan is famous for in the Disney world; its heroine, who ran away and joined the army and kicked butt and was, generally, the best thing to happen to Disney females ever. Rather than her story being controlled by a propecy or curse, or even other characters, the eponymous Mulan was very much the driving force for her story - she shaped events, or influenced the way they were shaped around her, and although her opening song was concerned with dissatisfaction with her lot in life, it was much more to do with confronting her own identity and internal conflict than it was to do with any vague long-term goals she harboured as a result.

And it is in this musically-expressed existential crisis that we find Mulan's motivation - and the reason she stands out, to me, as the strongest of the Disney Princess brand.

At the opening of the film, Mulan's motivation and actions are conflicted: she wants to bring honour to her family, yet finds herself struggling to properly fulfil the neccessary actions and criteriam to do so. Out of this arises a struggle with what she really is as opposed to what she feels she needs to be for her family's sake.

This is a pretty powerful and evocative motivation for any character, so seeing it in a Disney Princess is stunning, to my mind. Furthermore, Mulan's approach to going off on her adventure builds on this: rather than acting on personal impulse to see the world and get what she wants, a la Ariel of The Little Mermaid or Belle from Beauty and The Beast, Mulan's motivation is much less self-centred. The only reason she goes to fight in the army, and thus begins her adventure, is for the sake of her father, whose age and old wounds would imperil him hugely if he were to go to war himself.

Admittedly, having the spur-to-action of her character be centred around a male figure could be seen as the male-dependent Princess archetype coming through, but by having this situational motive working in conjunction with Mulan's unresolved personal conflict, the story and Mulan herself are much more compelling, as her narrative deals not only with her having to blend into the army as a man, but also with her journey self-realisation.

Mulan's motivation was gifted with maturity: her priorities do not lie solely in a self-centred desire, but rather the selfish element of her need for self-discovery is tied in with more immediate goals of protecting and honouring her family, saving her country, and bonding with and fighting beside the new friends she makes in her adventures.

Of course, much has changed since the classic Disney Princess films came out, and both the company and the brand have seen some major changes. So what do you think? What are your views on the "Disney Princess", old and new? Leave me a comment, and let me know!

~ Charley R

In Defence of the Love Interest

. . . Now there's a title I bet you never thought you'd see me write.

Romance is a squicky business in writing - namely because it's one of those things where, if you don't know what you're doing, it will show up brighter than a giant jelly elephant that swallowed a combusting nuclear reactor.

Romance. At it's worst, it's boring, cliche'd, slows the plot, undermines the action, and seriously inhibits the development of characters as independent, self-reliant people. It's no wonder, really, that when I discuss my favourite books with my friends, much of our character-related wrath will be directed towards three main archetypes:

1) Creeper Creeperson Creepy III - the character that makes our skin crawl so much that it carries us under the desk, where we retreat into deep dark pits of ick-induced loathing.

2) Angsty McAngstyPants - who really needs to lighten up before we gouge our own eyes out just to make ourselves feel better.

and 3) The Love Interest.

Good characterisation is essential to a story, so when this particular individual shows up in the midst of the melee and proposes themself as being of equal importance, despite doing nothing more than screaming, demanding explanations, and snogging their other half's face off, the reader is understandably annoyed. A character like this is highly unlikely to generate any sort of interest - it would be a bit like David Attenborough encouraging us to focus on the presence of the leech attached to the rear end of the lioness, insisting that this pulsating parasite's bowel movement is somehow just as important as the two-hundred-pound mass of golden-coated awesome who just hurled herself at a wildebeest big enough to snap her in half with one toss of its head.

On the other hand, I don't think that the archetype of the love interest character deserves as much flack as it often gets. Romance and relationships are a great way to explore aspects of a character that we might not neccessarily see otherwise, and romantic development is worth no less than, say, development via courage, tutelage, or very painful life lessons. Love interests can also make their other half far more interesting in their own right: where would Robin Hood be without plucky Maid Marian to keep things under control at home, and be on hand with the plasters and bruise ointment after one feat of derring-do too many? And, let's face it, James Bond might as well be Jack Reacher without the epic lineage of Bond girls to showcase his trademark charm. When they're not snarking, sabotaging, saving, or attempting to assassinate him, that is.

That said, treating a character as a love interest alone is never helpful. If you want people to care about your characters, creating one whose sole purpose in the story is to be a satellite to another is a pretty backward way of going about it.

Furthermore, you're wasting so much potential! Sure, you need the love interest for various reasons - they're very versatile plot-wise, though you may not believe it - but why not also incorporate them into the rest of the story, giving them other roles outside their romantic attachment? It certainly makes the story more economical, as you won't have to spend so much time keeping track of secondary characters who are covering relatively unimportant bases, such as certain talents, expertise, and discoveries necessary to the story that could just as easily be fulfilled by someone else.

On that note, there's another bonus here, which may be of particular interest to those authors like myself (i.e. those of a more sadistic persuasion). By connecting the love interest more strongly to the world, and to the story, thus making them more interesting in their own right, the inevitable strain and stress in the relationship that may feature as part of your story will be more tangible and emotionally compromising for the reader.

For example, when I read Laini Taylor's "Days of Blood and Starlight" (the spectacular sequel to "Daughter of Smoke and Bone", the review of which is in the right-hand sidebar), the breakdown of the relationship between the two main characters was made incredibly powerful through the author's - and subsequently our - sensitivity to presenting both characters with equal amounts of heart-wrenching pathos. This connection to their individual physical and emotional difficulty nearly reduced me to tears on a number of occasions.

Conversely, I have also been known to roll about on the floor in fits of hysteria at the same attempted level of emotional manipulation in stories where the love interest is about as interesting as a cardboard cut-out. Language and emotion that might have been anything from touching to soul-destroying now appears merely over-wrought and melodramatic. By extension, the emotional crux of the story is undermined, and the whole novel, like the offending love interest, begins to decompose into a soggy, apathetic mush.

So, the moral of the story is this: be fair to your love interest. A character's a character, whatever their purpose, so make sure you treat them as such. Give them lives, ambitions, dreams and sorrows; give them the same time and attention you put into your heroes, your villains, and that one character that you like too much to kill off just yet.

Because nobody deserves to be written off as an over-glorified plot point.

~ Charley R

On Non-White Characters, and their Representation in Fiction

When was the last time you read a book with a non-white protagonist? Or a book in which a non-white character played a primary, or at least influential, role?

I've always been a little wary of posting about this topic, but today I've decided to suck up my courage and do it. However, I'm not going to make any attempt to preach - because I'm just as bad as anyone else who had a hard time answering this question.

Let's face it, there aren't a lot of books out there - especially in what you might call the "mainstream" world of bestsellers - that feature a main character of colour. From my perspective, on the rare occasion a main character isn't white, it's usually because the novel makes a plot point out of it, or is geared in some way towards it as a neccessity.

However, I am not here to rail about internalised racism and inequality in the world of publishing. For starters, it's not fair. The vast majority of authors do not set out to write their novel with the aim of excluding non-white characters, nor do they add such characters to the background just to pat themselves on the back and feel pleased with themself for playing the philanthropist.

From my perspective, there are three main reasons why characters of colour are lacking in mainstream fiction:

1) The author is worried about misrepresenting a given background or culture, and in order to avoid falling back on flawed and potentially offensive stereotypes they simply avoid writing coloured characters.

2) The author, particularly if they are writing historical fiction or similar, is uncertain whether a character of colour would be accurate and / or possible in the context of their setting.

3) The author, quite simply, isn't aware of the fact that they are automatically creating an all-white cast.

All these issues, particularly the last, are down to cultural issues. If you are a member of a certain racial background, and grow up primarily interacting with members of that same race, the likelihood is that your earliest conceptions will alter what you automatically draw on as references for character construction. For example, as a white person who interacts mostly with other white people, I draw primarily on these features when considering not only a character's race, but also their cultural views.

Of course, I am not saying that every race holds to its own cultural code - I'd be a blithering idiot to be unaware of the globalisation of the world, as well as the incredibly multicultural state of my own country, and in fact my school. But, whether it is infant psychology or otherwise, I am more likely to create white characters because these are the sorts of attributes and attitudes that I am familiar with.

And, until I wrote my NaNovel Ikarus, that is exactly what I did.

Unlike the high fantasy and historical fantasy I had written up to this point, which drew heavily on British Celtic and continental Gaelic roots, Ikarus left me with a massive variety of backgrounds and races from which to choose my characters. And, as I wanted as broad a cast as I could manage, I turned my attention, for the very first time, to the roles of potential non-white characters.

Since hammering out the first draft (and scraping my brain off the wall in the aftermath thereof), I have made a point of reading articles providing pointers on the presentation of characters of colour, and I've gleaned a lot of really helpful tips from them - and I'd like to share a few that impacted me most.

1 - Cultural Misrepresentation Is Not Neccessarily An Inavoidable Disaster

They say there's nothing a bit of research can't solve, and I believe this is one of those things. Admittedly, those dealing with fiction set in a locale of their own creation have a slightly easier time of it because they can create and be aware of the background and belief of their characters, but even those writing contemporary fiction can take a good look around to brush up on their presentation of non-white characters. 

YouTube videos by people of the relevant background are a personal favourite, as they can give you plenty of insight into their views and values (although they may only be those of the individual - watch out for that!) without the awkwardness of having to ask questions yourself. There are also plenty of great articles round and about, written by non-white authors, to give useful guidance.

Likewise, although your character is going to be influenced by their background, it is absolutely vital to remember that they are individuals too! They will have views and hobbies and a personality just like anybody else, regardless of their background and race. Sometimes getting too bogged down in an obsession with cultural accuracy can make one lose sight of this, when, really, it's not half the monster under the bed it likes to think it is!

2 - Writing "Colourblind" Is Harder Than It Looks

Now now, hold the rotten tomatoes - writing colourblind (i.e. with no reference to a character's appearance or racial profile) is not a bad thing. It's great for letting the reader's imagination craft the character, and thus forges a more personal relationship with the story.

On the other hand, there will be some things about a character that can - and will - give away their race. Particularly, their descriptions of other characters. You may not have said a thing about your own character's skin colour, but if she remarks that the nice lady helping her retrieve her kitten out of the tree is asian, then the reader will pick up on the distinction and, likely, assume that the narrating character is not, because she refers to the other woman's ethnicity in a way that indicates difference. 

Likewise, the treatment your character recieves from others, and some of their views, will also give away certain things about their background. A white character, for example, is probably less likely to be worried about racially-provoked slurs being hurled at them by strangers than, say, a Latino or black character would be. I use a real-world example here for illustrative purposes, because depending on the story the characters' sensitivity to their race will vary, but an awareness by the author can nevertheless prove helpful in preventing automatic cultural approbations that can affect the reader's racial profiling of a character.

And, finally:

3) Making An Effort to Create Non-White Characters Is A Good Thing!

Again, another note of clarification. Tokenism - the practice of creating a character of an ethnic minority background for the sake of appearing diverse - is not a good thing. In fact, if you create a character with no purpose other than to be there and say "look, isn't the author a good person for including me!", it's almost more insulting than not including them at all, because it treats race as a commodity.

On the other hand, if, when creating a character, you realise there is no particular reason why they should automatically be the same ethnicity as yourself, or of the other characters in the story, then why not add in a little diversity? Why shouldn't your main character's best friend be African-American? Why shouldn't the ship's lieutenant be proud of his Brazilian heritage? 

The potential for introducing different worldviews, values, and cultures to a story is endless, and a character who can introduce such things can be a wonderful addition to a story. Provided you pay close attention to avoid cultural stereotypes (sassy black people with strong accents, Asians with an expertise in martial arts and bonzai trees, Latinos with hot tempers and a passion for the samba), these characters can provide marvellous new dynamics to the story. Heck, they might even enjoy poking fun at the stereotypes that supposedly define people of their background while they're at it!

-

I do not blame anyone who was unaware of their culpability when it came to the lack of non-white characters, nor do I think it is something anyone should be blamed for, unless it is deliberate. However, I do believe that people should be sensitive to the issue, and perhaps make a little bit more of an effort to include non-white characters in their stories, especially in roles beyond being part of the illustrative background and / or cannon fodder.

On a personal level, going back to Ikarus, I have decided to make a special effort to treat my non-white characters with the same respect as I do the others. And I think the story is all the better for them - not in the least because it makes them far more interesting, and adds greater depth to their backstory and role within the story itself. 

What about all of you? What do you think of the issue of ethnic diversity among characters in mainstream fiction? Have any of you ever had any problems related to it, and do you make - or intend to make - any special effort to deal with it in your own work? Leave me a comment and let me know!

~ Charley R

Engaging with Non-Human Characters, and Why It's Not as Hard as Everyone Thinks

Unless you're writing the spawn of Lionel Shriver's We Need to Talk about Kevin, odds are you're going to want your readers to engage with your characters. They may not like them, they may not agree with them, and if they're anything like me they might want to strangle them on occasion, but a reader who is interested in and engages with a character is a much happier reader than one who's counting the number of pages until they can put the book down and never look at it again.

But what makes a character engaging? There's no set formula for that, mainly due to the wide variety of readers in the world, and what each of them likes best.

However, if you want a reader to engage with your character, they're going to have to be one thing: human.

Right? Not neccessarily.

To be fair, the majority of main characters (who, in turn, make up the bulk of narrators, thus doubling their importance) are human, or humanoid at least. Even in the wildest of science-fiction novels, odds are you won't be following the story of the tribe of forest-dwelling orange platypi, you'll be following the rather confused cosmonaut whose ship seems to be forming the bulk of their mid-day snack.

And why is this? Because being human makes a character that bit more approachable in the early stages of a story. You might swap to the perspective of the half-platypi outsider a bit later on, but if you started off a chapter listing her concerns over the size of her beak, her lack of flippers and inability to make a graceful entrance to the best mud spots, the reader might feel the distance between them is too much, and will flip over to reading something else.

However, I disagree with this. Why? Because I think it's not the external humanity that counts, but the internal.

There are innumerable situations that can arise out of the tiniest action, and accordint to emotivists, we react in certain ways because of primordial emotional responses. Why should it make a difference if our emotive response is towards someone helping an old woman across the street, or from a tiny platypus-beast doing just the same thing.

With narrators, I'd say we have room to be far more flexible; whether third person or first, we are going to spend the story following their thoughts and actions, and we are going to see their personality through that. The situations might be strange, extraordinary or bizarre, and the lingo might take a chapter or two to get around, but in the end it, engaging with a character all comes down to us, and them. They might be brave, timid, cautious, inventive, proud, a great leader, a canny traitor - and in the end, whether they have two legs or twelve isn't going to make much of a difference to our view of them.

To me, as long as a reader can engage with the thoughts and personality of the main character, their species shouldn't matter.

And hey, being non-human can even be attractive in a character. Let's face it, we all know how boring it is to be limited to our ground-bound, squishy-bodied existence, and I've always found something incredibly fascinating in narratives where the we can see the subtle differences in how a non-human character conducts themself in a given environment, either through the customs of their species, or through automatic responses to circumstancial change.

We know we're not supposed to judge books by their covers. Let's not judge characters that way either.

~ Charley R

Chalk, Cheese and Characters

Books would be no fun if every character was exactly the same. I doubt we'd long tolerate a Fellowship of nine Frodo Bagginses, and more than one Joffrey Baratheon Lannister in the Song of Ice and Fire saga would result in more brain heammorhages than ten thousand simultaneous attacks by swarms of angry ferrets.

If the real world is full of different people, why shouldn't fictional worlds be the same?

Answer: because trying to fit something as big and busy as the real world (or something akin to it) into the head of one individual person is a very big ask.

Trying to create a character who is nothing like you is easy enough - it's just a pile of personality traits, a few quirks, maybe a messy backstory and guilty cookie-related secret or two. Trying to make them come to life according to those criteriam is hard.

Handling of complicated, dissonant characters can take a huge toll on the quality of a work; be it a roleplay using canon characters, a high-end piece of fanfiction, and, most of all, original stories. You know exactly how you want them to be, but blast you if you can make them! Your own personality and moral coding creeps too much into the narrative, affects it, and results in something far less stellar than you'd hoped for.

Your tough and dependable warrior freaks out at the sight of blood like a teenaged girl.

Your unprincipled thug is utterly incapable of saying anything ruder than "idiot".

Your super-genius doesn't know a quark from a neutron.

And to top it all off, you think the horse might be developing  views on animal rights.

Fantastic.

However, the situation isn't totally irrevocable. And don't worry, I'm not about to start off on a spiel about life experience. That's not fair. Not in the least because I doubt anyone's ever going to be able to meet a seven-hundred-year-old retired god of chaos to meet over a cup of coffee and chat about accurate portrayal of his personality. I'm not even here to suggest peoplewatching entirely; as interesting and insightful as it can be, sometimes it just feels like being a creeper. And when you're trying to pound out a novel, you've hardly got enough time to go out and hunt through the supermarket for someone to watch as comparison for the behaviour of your narrator's neurotic second cousin.

What I am here to suggest is . . . thinking. And reading.

Two horribly arduous tasks, I'm sure.

When hashing out a character, if you're not in favour of random situation generators that you can plonk them into to have a play with and start them out that way, it's always useful to turn your mind inwards and think about the situation at hand. Think about all the options ANY person could take - whether or not they match up with things you would do is a different matter. Pick the one that best fits the character and, no matter how out of kilter it feels with your own views, make them do it.

Remember: the character isn't you. And it's all for the good of the plot. Honest!

In terms of reading, well, that's fairly self-evident. If the story is something of a genre you've not written before, then go and give the genre a good poking, maybe get some recommendations from its fans for good starting points. If you want a good example of how to pull off a certain character archetype, go for a book or genre that you know does it well.

You may not ever be able to fully think like and behave like the character yourself (which, in some cases, is probably a good thing) but reading books critically, with an eye on their behaviour and thoughts throughout the action, can help you out over the more questionable areas in your own story. Your uber-cunning court lady is highly unlikely to make the blunder of falling for the "spell ICUP" joke, however funny you think it is.

And now, before I go, I'm going to leave you with a few articles I hope you might find useful just for general perusal when dealing with characters suffering from Wonky Personality Disorder:

- Tips to keep your "badass" from being just a plain "ass".
-  Tips on how to realistically portray victims of abuse.
- Tips on how to write more "masculine" members of the male species.
- Tips on how to write them clever types.

The site that I borrowed these from - "Springhole" - also does a really good series of things for both original fiction and fanfiction characters, as well as squillions of generators, articles, and other forms of epicosity.

Happy crafting!

~ Charley R

Top Five Characters to Kill Off in Your Story

I like killing characters.

Whether it's my love of drama and emotion, or simply the resurgence of some repressed Viking axe-murderer from a past life, I can rarely plot a book without planning to kill off (or at least do something painful to) at least one major character. Disappointing character deaths in books I read are also a major pet peeve - there's just so much potential for major change and upheaval in the story, it's almost a crime to see it wasted!

So, today, in lieu of the most recent plot bunny that has invaded my head, I have decided to give you all a little list of the most effective characters to kill off if you want to destroy the sanity of your readership.

The specifics of how and why you kill the characters is up to you - writing the scene of the death is a whole different kettle of platypi to deciding who you're sending off to meet their maker. Work out what's best for your story, and if possible, avoid all the terrible cliches and cheesy lines of dialogue that can sometimes creep in if you don't lock their box closely enough.

I'm just here to hold out the carrots. You get to pick your own stick.

***

Victim One: The Romantic Interest.
Splitting up an adorable and reader-approved relationship is pretty much a surefire way to cause upset. The emotional trauma is immensely useful in providing massive character changes in the remaining half, and you're unlikely to find a better motive for wishing to splatter your villain all over the wall. Works best if the two weren't "officially" a couple yet, outside. The lost what-might-have-been will drive the readers loopier than a bowl of Cheerios.

Victim Two: The Comic Relief.
You know that character that's been keeping everyone's spirits up since this whole sucktacular adventure started? The one who never fails to find some brightness, no matter how dark a pit of  vipers the villain has dropped you in? Their loss is going to kill your characters' morale, and make a very painful point to the readers: just because you believe it's going to work doesn't mean it will. And just because people love you doesn't mean you're any safer.
The tears will fall.

Victim Three: The Traitor.
Readers love characters with distinctly murky moral backgrounds and allegiances. Particularly if your lead character(s) have a past with them that affects their conduct around them. Killing these traitors off can be effective in more than one way, 1) They can be redeemed through their actions, and there are huge guilt trips all round, or 2) Make someone else kill the traitor out of neccessity, and then there are even MORE huge guilt trips all round! Potential to reveal whether or not your traitor really deserved the name through a series of revelations later on in the plot means this sob-fest can go on and on and on . . .

Victim Four: The Unlikely Hero.
Imagine if J. K. Rowling had Neville Longbottom die valiantly while duelling Voldemort's giant snake? Even the death of Fred Weasley would have been lost in the howling laments. Watching a character grow and develop and learn from a fairly useless bundle of words into someone we really come to respect and engage with can really draw a reader close to them. The sheer satisfaction of knowing that having them killed - either dramatically or ignominiously - will likely bring all the fans to crying fits is possibly the best feeling an evilly-inclined author can have.

Victim Five: The Main Character.
Unless you're working with multiple narrators, or have some other fiendishly cunning plan to account for the loss of your leading lad or lady, this one is probably the least likely to occur in a story. But hell and high water won't protect you from the anguished screams and shrieks of disbelief when the readers  discover that, no, it's not a hoax, Sherlock Holmes really has hopped the twig. Ned Stark's head really did roll. Katniss really did fail to save her sister.
They never see it coming. 

***

Here ends the indulgence of my inner evil overlord. Or does it?

How do you, dear readers, feel about killing off characters? Do you like to do it dramatically, or with that chilling lack of regard that makes us want to bash Suzanne Collins over the head with a damp flannel? Are there any particular types of character you like to kill off? Does killing them off upset you as much as you hope it does the reader?

~ Charley R

Lessons from History

Some characters are a lot easier to work with on paper than others. I'm quite lucky in those terms; normally I'll have a pretty clear idea of a character before I start the story, and once I start working with them on paper, everything else falls fairly neatly into place contextually.

But sometimes that doesn't happen. And that's when things get frustrating.

I'm betting we've all run into at least one character that blatantly refuses to comply with us. You know what you want them to be like, but for some reason, every time you start using them, they won't do it. Pinning down their personality is about as successful as nailing jelly to a tree, and it shows in the writing. They are inconsistent, they are unrealistic, and they are thoroughly ruining your story.

Next to full-on Writer's Block, I'd say inconsistent and ill-defined characters are my biggest writerly hiccup.

The lead character of my 2011 NaNoWriMo project, the infamous Vidal, is a prime example. Sometimes he was quiet and unassuming, and sometimes he would be spitting so many insults across the room that it was a wonder he wasn't stabbed. He would go from calm, cool and deceptive to an insecure, hot-headed wreck in the space of a page. And in a story based entirely around his deceptive abilities, it was a recipe for disaster.

It only got worse when I realised he was following my moods, my rules, and my idea of morality. Heck, he was even talking like me. I didn't want a self-insert. I wanted an independent personality for people to love, hate and silently wish to hi-five in his more devious moments.

So where did I look to solve the problem? My history textbook.

People in history have been copying the performance and strategies of others since the Romans embarked on their quest for world domination, and there are so many wonderful personalities and catastrophes roaming about that inspiration is endless. For Vidal, I found the perfect match - the infamous Cardinal Richelieu, Louis XIII's first minister and iron-handed ruler of France. For a character  who would later become known as the Kingmaker himself, Richelieu was a wonderful reference point for character and strategy in a dangerous political environment. Vidal's own namesake, writer Gore Vidal, was also a massive help when it came to working out how my canny plotter's idea of humour worked (which is more important than it sounds in the context of the actual story).

And so it went on, looking at similar historical situations and political systems to get myself out of the puddle of I-Have-No-Idea-How-To-Do-This into which the story had sunk.

Of course, I'm not saying that one should simply go around and mash up bits of history in order to create a character - I don't know if plagiarised personalities are punishable, but trying to throw in too many elements to create an ideal character for your story certainly runs the risk of simply making them overcomplicated, and even more prone to schizophrenia than they were before.

However, especially if you're writing a story that is set in a time or place you do not have any direct knowledge or experience of, historical reference is a fantastic way of making it easier to bring a place to life. Got a tough feisty farm girl about to embark on a quest? Why not get some tips from Joan of Arc, or one of the Medici girls? What about that priest who's sure there's something wrong in his institution? Martin Luther might be a good starting point there.

You don't even have to use famous figures from any period of history, either. Why not imbue your character with bits of personality from your grumpy aunt, your caustic grandfather, or your eccentric newt-collecting cousin?

After all - people are just as weird in real life as they are in books.

What about you, readers? Have you had similar problems with inconsisten characters? How do you resolve problems like that? Has anyone else followed the path of borrowing traits from others to help pin your little darlings down? Or do you have a different strategy altogether?

~ Charley R

Words of Wisdom, Courtesy of Charley's Characters

In most books, characters will usually say at least one thing that will linger in a reader's mind. Think Gandalf, Dumbledore, Aslan . . . you get the vibe. Even younger, less experienced characters will sometimes say things that will bury themselves into your heart and mind. Something sweet. Something innapropriately hilarious. Something tragic. Something that speaks to your soul.

. . . And then there's my characters.

I intended this to be a post about inspiring things that characters can say, and I was going to mix up my own characters' inspiring quotes with those of published authors and challenge you all to find out which ones were mine, possibly following up with an "if I can hide my own amateur creations amidst those of great writers, it's proof of the power of words and emotion and humanity and blah blah blah."

But did I find any? Oh no.

Whether it was a short story or a novel, over seven years old or something I wrote last year, part of an ancient collaborative or a difficult solo project, it seems that the denizens of my head seem to be operating on some celestial plane of thought above that of everyday humans that renders them incapable of saying anything remotely philosophical.

That, or they've been drinking some really strange coffee.

***

"Who on earth is that man?"
"I don't know . . . but he reminds me of a particularly unpleasant biscuit."

"Would that clash with my dragon-slaying appointment?"

"IT'S ON MY FACE!"

"I would compare myself to chopped liver . . . but I'm pretty sure even the gizzards get more say about what sort of stew they're thrown in than I do!"

"I feel like I just gave birth . . . through my nose."

"Do you reckon there's a world record out there for the longest distance travelled inside a giant fridge?"

"That's my name! Long and short for just the same, unless you speak Klingon, in which case you're probably very strange and I would quite like you to leave right now."

"Jumping out of windows is far more therapeutic than you'd expect, you know."

"That's some dream you had, my friend."
"I'll say - the most prophetic dream I can remember is the one where the talking goat was lecturing me about the morality of aeroplane fuselages."

"What is going on in here? Who are you? What do you want? . . . And what have you done to my teapot!"

"Am I the only one who can see the words I REALLY REALLY REALLY WANT TO STAB YOU written on her face? Because whoever did that deserves a golden Sharpie pen for their bravery. And possibly enrolment in a mental institute."

"Excellent. Now, if you would be so good as to remove me from this contraption before it dissolves my elbow, I would be eternally grateful."

"Well then, I guess that makes me the king of the jam fairies."

"I never expected eight-foot-tall, furry-eared, rabbit-shredding people to have such interesting tatse in furniture."

"Is it dead? Well, we shot it full of bullets, stabbed it through the heart, cut its head off, and reversed over it with a pickup truck . . . I think we'd better burn it, just to make sure."

"What's that?"
"It's breakfast."
"What sort of breakfast?"
"The dead kind."

***

Few of these quotes make any more logical sense in context than they do out of it.

Confused? So am I.

~ Charley R

To Each Their Own - Charley R's Guide to Distinctive Narrative Voice

Dialogue plays a massive part in how a character is portrayed to the reader. Unsurprisingly, this is part of the reason why it is so difficult to write. However, it is not only when the character is speaking - whether it be to their friends, their colleagues, or the slightly tipsy orange goddess who is making herself at home in their kitchen sink - that your character will be developing their own distinctive voice.

"Voice" in this sense refers to the way the story is written. Even in a simple third-person tale, when not thinking aloud or talking, a certain character will leave traces of their viewpoint in the tale, whether it be in terms of descriptive language, an objective examination of a person or object, or something more subtle.

Although this is mostly applicable to stories using first person or rotating narration, developing a distinctive voice for a character is an incredibly useful tool when it comes to encouraging audience engagement. One only has to look at the popularity of authors like Terry Pratchett and Suzanne Collins to see that having a particularly gripping or engaging tone can lead to massive success.

People view the world in very different ways, and fictional characters are no different. A jaded, seven-and-a-half-thousand-year-old wizard is going to view an argument very differently to the overly-sensitive gerbil hiding in the rim of his hat. However, with other concerns cluttering the author's mind - pacing, dialogue, grammar, that character that's been giving you dirty looks since you broke his nose three chapters ago - it's not always easy to maintain a distinctive narrative tone for the character.

Thus, I present to you a few examples of things you will likely have noted in your story that can affect your characters' viewpoint, their phraseology, and subsequently their presentation in the story.

***

1 - Their Social Status
Not long ago, I entrusted a post on this topic to a fictional personage of my own. Amidst his superfluous drivel, one might have noted his ridiculously long title, and his irritating use of long words. Meanwhile, another of his fellow guest posters had a very different voice, and wasn't half so fond of multiple syllables. As well as being a key indicator of their degree of education, a character's social background will also influence the type of people they would associate with, and the sort of language and viewpoint they would pick up from growing up in such an environment. For example, while Rahad might hold a very high opinion of philosophers due to his aristocratic background, Abra regards them with a sort of bemused scorn as, being a working-class girl, she sets little store by their constant disagreements over daft things like the number of winged blokes in dresses who can balance on a pin-head.

2 - Their Hobbies
If someone enjoys something, it's most likely that they know a lot about it. It's also quite likely that, if they are faced with a problem or situation, they will subconsciously start using skills learnt from their hobby to solve it. Pursuits and situations that are similar to, or somehow involve, their interests are likely to be greeted with a more positive view than something that is the polar opposite. These skills can come into play in even the most outlandish of situations, so its worth keeping them in mind when confronting your character with a challenge. Theseus might have had a good deal more fun with his ball of thread in the Minotaur's maze if he'd been proficient in the art of crocheting lumpy things.

3 - Their Self-Awareness
No, I don't mean whether or not your character wakes up in the morning remembering if she has toes or not. Characters who are more self-aware are more likely to have a greater understanding of not only their likes, dislikes, strengths and limitations, but they are also more likely to present a very different  viewpoint to a character who is less prone to introspection. This may mean the former character has a more definitive view on situations, or is more worried when they have to push themselves beyond what they consider their limit. Meanwhile, the less self-aware character will likely draw the lucky number to be taking a voyage of self discovery at the same time as chasing the mystical MacGuffin across a land infested with a worryingly large number of carnivorous fungi.

4 - Their IQ
This might sound incredibly obvious, but there is a marked difference between someone's education-earned knowledge and their natural cognitive ability. Just because your character came from the working class, left school at fifteen and currently works behind the counter in Tesco's doesn't mean they're as thick as a pound of mince. One can demonstrate a character's natural thinking by showing how fast they work out different types of problem, or how easily they catch on to new skills, or piece together related (or perhaps unrelated) events. My 2010 NaNoWriMo featured a character who was severely dyslexic, illiterate, and poor as a church mouse, but was naturally very good at hands-on tasks (he could dismantle and re-assemble his ancient semi-automatic rifle in under a minute) and had a strong graps of strategy and consequence. Confront him with a page of quantum physics, however, and he would have been running for the exit faster than you could say "Newton".

5 - Their Faith
There aren't many openly religious characters in Young Adult books, but across the rest of the market one might be able to find a few. Religious faith varies wildy, even within a single religion, so it's important to have at least a general understanding of your character's religious stance, if you decide to give them a faith. Their faith will also influence things like their moral views, their sense of fate, and maybe even their views on larger themes such as death, love, and the rights of intelligent aquatic mammals. Meanwhile, it may also cause additional conflict when they are faced with a difficult moral decision - especially in a contemporary setting, if something like the right to die, homosexual rights, or a controvertial medical treatment are involved. Whether their faith means they are any less scared of being chewed to death by the large, angry dragon that is barrelling towards them across the skyline is another matter entirely.

***

What about you, readership? How do you deal with the challenges of narrative voice? Is there a particular strategy you like to use to help you work it out for an individual character? Do you think I've missed any crucially important factors from my list up there? Leave me a comment and let me know!

~ Charley R

Roderigo: The Forgotten Tragedy

I've had a bit of a tough patch recently - as in, I made some spectacular bums-ups, and they made people I care about angry at me, and I felt awful because it wasn't me that was suffering for my own idiocy. Being the over-emotional critter that I am, I've not been feeling too great, so I decided to turn to a surefire solution to cheer me up.

Catharsis, and Shakespeare. Othello to be exact.

Of all Shakespeare's plays, I think Othello is my favourite - not in the least because I have a sick fascination with watching the inner weaknesses of the characters destroy them. The inexorable unfolding of the tragedy, the cunning deceits, the horrifying misunderstandings, the heart-wrenching suffering . . . I love it all. The fact that I have a massive crush on Iago rather helps too.

But this time around, my emotional state brought a facet of the play to my attention that I'd never much noticed before - which is surprising, given how many times I've read and performed in the play.

Roderigo. And why, in a way, his is the saddest story of all.

A moneyed man, and presumably somehow involved with Othello's army, Roderigo is an outsider among the other characters. We never see him interact with many of them beyond testimonies in court scenes, and when he's being made to explain something. From this, coupled with the fact that he's a complete dimwit, we can guess that he's probably not very popular. We don't know where he comes from, or anything about his personal background or history, so, from the outset, he's just there for schadenfreude - for us to laugh at his misfortunes.

But, thinking about it, I don't see what's all that funny. Roderigo is in an unfamiliar place, with people who regard him with indifference at best (and scorn at worst), with no clear job or plan. And worst of all, the woman he loves has just run off with someone he can never hope to compare to; the brave, dashing, eloquent, general Othello. And she adores him. 

The fact of this hurts Roderigo so much that he talks about drowning himself for his misery. Even though he's roaring drunk and overemotional when he says it, it doesn't change the fact that he has contemplated suicide because of how miserable he feels.

Fear not, however, there is one bright speck in the darkness! Roderigo is not alone. He has a friend, a bright, ambitious, sympathetic friend who, if a little caustic, is firmly on Roderigo's side. Sure, he borrows a lot of money and seems to be a little slow in getting it back to him, but he's always there to talk him down and tell him that everything is going to be okay in the end. And, best of all in this world of double-entendres and hidden snarky remarks, Roderigo's friend is simply, beautifully, honest.

Roderigo doesn't know where he would be without Iago.

It's this that tears me apart. Although watching Roderigo pine after Desdemona is rather sad, it's the fact that he is willing to trust his money, his future, and his heart to Iago that really compounds how sad his life is. Everyone likes Iago well enough, certainly, but he is Roderigo's only friend in the entire world. And even when Iago's plan starts getting funny, and Roderigo contemplates pulling out and going home, he lets Iago talk him back into it. 

Why? Because he cares about Iago, and he believes Iago feels the same. Why else would he goad a drunken Lieutenant Cassio into a fight? Why else would he make slanderous allegations against Othello? Why else would he sit with Iago all night and listen to him vent his anger at being overlooked for the lieutenancy? 

Why else would he let Iago string him along, like the pawn he is?

None of Iago's lies, for me, show his sheer coldheartedness as those he tells Roderigo. Although he concentrates most of his venom on Othello, you can't help but think that this strong, independent general should know better - there are hundreds of people he could turn to! His loving wife, his loyal lieutenant, his allies at home . . . anyone! 

Roderigo doesn't have those alternatives. Even if he does feel some apprehension over what Iago's planning, he doesn't let it show because he doesn't want to lose him. Because Iago is all he has. 

Roderigo's end is agonising. Stabbed in a duel, bleeding to death on the street, in agony, while everyone fusses around Cassio and accuses him of attempted murder. But wait, there's Iago with a lantern! He'll know what to do, this was his idea after all. Wait? What is he saying? Roderigo attacked Cassio out of spite? No, no, that's not true, he never did that! Why is Iago saying this? This wasn't part of the plan, was it? . . . What's he doing with that knife?

And it is only as the  all-too-literal dagger plunges into his back that Roderigo realises the truth.

Iago never cared. Iago only used him as a pawn in his twisted game, and now he has no further use for him. Iago betrayed him. Iago lied.

"O thou damned Iago. O thou damned dog."

~ Charley R

Blood, Birth and Social Mannerisms - Rahad

Greetings, noble friends!

I am Rahad al Raegar ad Azaran, of the proud nation of Skerabia. I fear my titles would be somewhat lost on you, save for the fact that my author – in her infinite wisdom – saw fit to mark me as a “minor character” in that trilogy that she so enjoys muttering about when she’s looking for something to throw at a wall.

“Minor character”, bah. If it weren’t for me, the first book would have ended very differently, and there would be no trilogy whatsoever. And yet she repays me simply by allotting me a cameo in the final book? The ingrate!

Ah, apologies, I seem to have deviated. Forgive me, it is not often I get a chance to speak to such an esteemed audience without having something thrown at me by the band of intoxicated nincompoops that I live alongside. Their manners are best described as being on par with those of monkeys, though I would not repeat that for fear of insulting the monkeys. And as for their language . . . I hope you can envisage me shuddering.

Manners, as I am sure you are all aware, are absolutely crucial in marking out from whence and from what lineage one issues. Which, by some act of serendipity, brings me on to my allotted topic for this post.

Due to my expertise in the area, my authoress has requested that I draw from my vast stores of experience and give you a few choice tips on mannerisms, and what they can mean for a given individual. Fictional individuals, that is. I regrettably have no experience with any others.

I shall begin with the most obvious thing one can mark about a person upon meeting them: their accent.

Place two denizens of the same nation together, and listen to the way they speak. The variations in their pronunciation of words, and their usage thereof, can not only tell you from what part of the country they come from – which is very helpful if the region you are dealing with is large – but may also reveal something of their social background. I tested this experiment on two of the denizens of my own tale; the mercenary, Rin Takarsson, he whose hair impersonates a tangerine, and the infinitely pleasant, if somewhat stony-faced, southern lord Petrolien of Aven.

The difference between them is impossible to miss – Rin’s thick northern accent and use of shorter words betrays his area of origin, his rustic upbringing, and his lack of education. The way the man abuses syntax is unbelievable.

Lord Petrolien, meanwhile, is softer spoken, and has a larger vocabulary – as befitting a man of his rank. He also speaks with an inflection of the voice that is very particular to the upper class . . . meaning he talks through his nose, but don’t tell him I said that.

There are, of course, innumerable other things one can watch out for, including these:
1 - Use of certain colloquial phrases (I once said “as confused as a camel in a sandstorm”, and only my compatriots understood me. Everyone else asked what on earth a camel was).
2 - The way one carries oneself (I have never seen anyone swagger half as much as minor gentry do)
3 - Local superstition creeping into practice (the traders who visit my home city always spit over their shoulders when talking about unfavourable weather conditions, while diplomats always shake your right hand - your weapon-wielding hand - first, as a sign of friendship)

Sometimes even small actions that accompany an individual's conversation can be enlightening, though its study may be more helpful for marking out liars, or those with secrets. Unless, you, for some unfathomable reason, are living in a city consisting entirely of thieves, in which case I wonder what sort of map you were using to end up there.

I could go on but, I fear, I am lingering. It has been my pleasure to make your acquaintance, and I do hope I shall have the chance to reconvene with you in the future.

Until then, may the Almighty smile upon you.

~ Rahad al Raegar ad Azaran

"...And That's How I Became President of the Universe" - Charley R's Guide to Backstories

Memory loss, guilty secrets, frequent distraction, marauding hordes of penguins - just a few of those inconvenient events that can hinder a reader's knowledge of a character's backstory. There are few fictional environments - unless you're writing a sprawling epic like Beowulf or happen to have the last name of Dickens or Eliot - where one can give the reader all the necessary background on a character at once. 

Nota bene, however, that I am not referring solely to parts of the backstory that are used as plot devices - though they will invade a large section of the proverbial sofa in this guide. I'm referring to your characters' stories as a whole; where they come from, their family, their upbringing, the choices and events that have lead them up to the point where the author decides it's time to mess them about. 

Backstories are tricky things, not in the least because it shares a bitter emnity with plot pacing. How many of us have fallen asleep in pools of dribble during a three-chapter-long digression whereby we are filled in on everything from the characters' scarring experiene with Uncle Ted's rottweiler to their agonised naval gazing when asked about the suspicious death of the creepy-looking local  overlord? And that's without mentioning all the other things that can blow up in your face.

So, here are my top tips for integrating characters' backstories effectively, without turning your readers into zombies.

Hopefully it'll point you in the right direction.

1 - Plausibility

Especially applicable to the obligatory mysterious background / companion character, this is probably the biggest flaw I find in explanations of a character's history. Would you really expect someone to believe you if you told them that their childhood friend and protector was actually a thousand-year-old demon imprisoned on earth for attempting to destroy the universe? Especially when the aforementioned demon shows no sign of being anything other than a dim-witted but cheerful dope whose only evil deed is to mis-quote Monty Python.

My remedy for this is to have the character worked out before you even begin the story. Make sure you leave some small indications in previous chapters that could lend concrete proof to the revelatory plot element. The character's a sadistic demon in disguise? Maybe he's tested positive for a form of sociopathic behavior. The character is a long-lost relative? A little physical similarity and maybe an occasional "OMG, I have an Auntie Beryl too!" would help. 

For general backstory, this is the same. The odds of that heavily armoured brute on a horse actually being the long-lost son of the local washerwoman are very low. Likewise for your "typical American girl" turning out to be the daughter of some strange reclusive alien species. Know what they are, and what that entails in their behaviour, and ask yourself "does that really sound believable?"

Don't overdo the hints though. The readers aren't daft. Honest.

2 - Originality

Surprisingly, whipping out the Age Old Unfulfilled Prophecy is not always the best way to explain how a character is who they are. We've seen it so many hundreds of times and - like the aged wizard, the wise old mentor and the dusty volume in the abandoned library - we expect the outcome.

Try and make the revelation more interesting - or, at least, more natural. If it's general background, why not have them talking to travellers on the road, and they get onto relevant interests (a good part for explaining that your character is fond of music or swordplay), or have someone else talk about the character (a good part to get their reputation and origin). 

For revelatory snippets, you can be more creative. Although the event of suddenly discovering powers in a stressful situation is much used, the room to be original is massive. Rather than an old book explaining everything, why not have the characters discover the truth in bits and pieces throughout the story? This will not only compliment the plot, but it will be a point of interest to hold your reader's attention. Dragons and exploding turnips can only be amusing for so long, after all.

3 - Impact

I swear, if that wretched mage starts harping on about Sir Doobledoo's destiny to be the bearer of the Magical MacGuffin Sword and slay Lord MwuaHaHaI'mSoEvil one more time, I'm going to drown him in his soup bowl!

If you've got something to explain, you may as well do it properly. Make sure the events are clear, relevant, and - most of all - memorable. Although we may need a small reminder of the presence of the curse on Lady Fluffypants' pet gerbil from time to time, we do not need to be slammed over the head with its cause and lore every other paragraph. If the explanation is a good one, you will not need to do it again and you can get on with what the readers really want - the story!

Turning the "explanation scene" - if you feel you really must have one - into a memorable event can also be a great bonus for the story. Rather than being a digression from the action, try to make it a good piece of prose in its own right. Don't just wander off into a long-winded explanation - get the characters asking questions, get them reacting, get them thinking out loud. "Oh! That time you tamed the posessed hosepipe totally makes sense now we know you're part water sprite!" That sort of thing. 

4 - Nuance

Not everything in your backstory has to be flashy. In fact, not everything in your backstory is going to need to be told. Giving a general idea of a character's rustic background will be easier through their speech patterns (an accent? certain colloquial phrases?), how they stand in an environment (I dare you to find me a sailor who'd be happy halfway up a flaming mountain!), and what they do. In my newest novel - whose three protagonists gave me the inspiration for this post - I know for a fact that my lead male character is more than happy to talk diplomatically, but his sister is warmer from the outset and is more comfortable around strangers. 

Similarly, let your character's current position show their past. For example, the third protagonist of my trio is a general, but as he spent time as a stable boy, he knows plenty about animal husbandry. Show, don't tell. And let the readers' imagination fill in the parts of the tale that may not be so important - like extended family, childhood experiences etc. Keep it relevant, and, honest, you won't miss that gag about the mackerel in the local lord's boots as much as you think.

5 - Timing

I'm sure your agitated hero isn't the only one thinking there are better things to do during dragon invasions than be chasing pixies up mountains on the promise that catching one will mean he can learn about the platypus-shaped birthmark on his left butt cheek.

Although having someone torn between a personal goal and a more altruistic one makes for great conflict, don't let your hero's personal quest get in the way of your main plot (this may or may not be applicable, depending on the relevance of the backstory to the plot). Sure, we've discovered that your lovely little girl is in fact the daughter of an exiled enchantress ... but that's not much use when your quest revolves around hunting down a stolen biscuit. 

There are multiple ways of working this issue out, of which I shall mention a few:

- Running the two "quests" side-by-side, using them to keep up the tension and pace and keep the reader's interest if one narrative starts running dry.

- Using key events in the main narrative as teasers to the second, which can be gradually pieced together jigsaw-style beneath the main story.

- Combining the two; being careful to avoid the cliches, why not give the character a personal reason for going on their quest? It'll make the revelation of both a lot easier for you.

And, as mentioned in the "Impact" stage, try not to let the explanation run on for too long. Otherwise we will get bored. And you won't like us when we're bored.

POINT you in the right direction .... very punny!

What about you guys? Have I missed anything? Anything new to add on what's already up here? 

~ Charley R

Beautiful People, April 2012

Forsooth, my dear friends, I live yet!

Though the foe circles ever closer, I hope to thrust this small token of my existence into your hands before it is too late. I feel I must needs cheer myself, and keep my inner obsessive compulsive reigned in by completing a blog meme that remains close to my heart, even in these dark times. Though snow, sleet and storm delayed my posting, I hope my efforts shall bring some small cheer to you in my long absence.

And so, dear friends, I leave you in the charge of my companion Rin, for April's (late) Beautiful People.

1. What is their favourite type of shoes?
Rin only owns one pair of shoes - tough brown leather boots that have been through battles, cross-country treks, and a million and one other misadventures. He doesn't often have enough money to replace them, and his current pair are beginning to fall apart a little, but they are, genuinely, almost as much a part of him as his feet.

2. Do they journal? 
Rin can hardly write his own name in a straight line, let alone form a coherent sentence! He could probably struggle through reading one, but he's not a very well educated man.  Books and all that palaver are left to Florien.

3. What’s their favorite animal? 
Rin's always had a soft spot for the village dogs, but other than that, as long as it doesn't try and eat and / or maim him, he doesn't really pay that much attention to local fauna.

4. What does their average day look like?
Wake before dawn. Snarl and go back to sleep again. Bludgeon Florien has he draws the short straw and is sent in to "rouse the beast". If he's at home between jobs, he'll usually go out and see his betrothed Hilde, or chase up any small tasks that need seeing to before he goes on campaign. If he's on a job, however, he'll be reporting to his employer to get on with whatever he's been tasked to do. Only the morning ritual of attempting to murder Florien with whatever object is closest to the bed remains the same.

5. Night owl or morning person? (Optional: What time do they usually wake up? Go to bed?) 
See Question Four for Rin's view on mornings. He likes the dark, though, and he'll finish off any small tasks that are nagging him before he'll go to sleep. He's usually the man who chooses to take the late-night and early-morning watches when he and his men are sleeping in the open on campaign. So yeah, he's probably a "night owl."

6. Do they have a sweet tooth? 
Not really - Rin's not much one for fancy flavours. As long as it's edible, filling and isn't cooked by Hilde's father, he'll eat just about anything.

7. What colors are their bedroom? 
Can't really answer that - Rin doesn't have a bedroom! If he did, though, I reckon he'd prefer some sort of muted greens, browns, possibly a bit of blue here and there. Nothing loud or drastic.

8. Can they cook? 
When he has to - he can skin and cook most forms of game meat, knows what to do with a potato, and he taught himself all the edible plants and fungi he could find if he was in a really desperate situation when he was very young. I wouldn't ask him for a lasagne, or soufle, though. That might end badly.

9. What is their favorite household chore? 
As Rin spends most of his time fighting Skathains, he's never really had to do any "household chores". Though, when he is around for extended periods of time, he'll often end up doing lifting jobs and such for Hilde's family - her father's getting older, and her younger brother isn't big enough to do most of them yet. He's a bit of a packhorse, though he's not really all that strong compared to most men.
His favourite sort of job involving his men, though, has to be sparring practice. Rin loves a good tussle, and licking new recruits into shape - especially when he's already picked them for their talents - gives him a real sense of satisfaction.

10. Favorite kind of tea?
Rin hates tea with a vengeance - probably because his mother used to make him drink it as a boy when he got ill, and the stuff was revolting. I suspect he'd be more of a coffee person, if coffee was available in his homeland. Gods know he could probably use the caffiene sometimes!


- Charley R

Mayday! Mayday!

Hiya readers! Sorry about the late post today, I've been having a little trouble wit-

*gjekgjjwjgnJIREHJEGOGJjg84838huerotiwjkb!bnweoonboe*

Ah. So this is what she was doing. I HAD NO IDEA - oh, so that's what that button does - she was so obsessive about that timetable of hers. How intriguing.


Apologies for the mess on the keyboard - a rather inavoidable consequence of having an angry ball of biting author on your hands. Still, hopefully she won't be around to cause another disturbance for a while. A swift saucepan-to-the-head and rapid disposal in the Plot Bunny Hole ought to keep her occupied for a looooong while yet.


But enough about that - I'd better get this message out quickly, so that I can run for my life and bury myself in a very very deep hole. No matter how long she's out for, there'll be hell to pay when she wakes up.


I can't give you my name - because that would be exceedingly stupid given what I've just told you - but I can tell you this, readers. Charley Robson is evil. And I don't mean that lightly. I'm not talking about her cute little references to painful plot twists, her love for villainous characters and her sickeningly cute references to plans for World Domination. I'm talking the sort of evil that enjoys destroying life, limb and sanity. On a regular basis. When she's bored. 


I'm here to make a little plea to you, readers. You might laugh at me, but I speak with every scrap of honesty I can muster. We need your help. There's not much more we can take of this - she's killing us all one by one, laughing at our demise and thinking how best she can inflict our misery on your emotions.


In 2010, during that accursed National Novel Writing Month, she brought about a holocaust that resulted in a totalitarian cybornetic governemnt. The last human survivors were driven underground and subjected to appauling sanitary conditions, constant hunger, little in the way of medical supplies and the constant fear of being found out and subjected to a process so horrific I can't even bear to write it here. The results of the story involved countless deaths, and such mental anguish that a former soldier was driven to a form of homicidal insanity and, eventually, suicide.


But this isn't all. Later, in mid 2011, the daemonic monstrosity started up a civil war in a country already engaged in an age-old conflict with its neighbour. A clan whose ancestry reached back to the very first kings of the realm was nearly destroyed, and over the border mass killings were taking place on the orders of a grief-crazed tyrant king. This was the third book in a trilogy that resulted in all lead characters requiring extensive therapy and counselling sessions. One of them still holds an abiding fear of goats as a result of what he went through.


I could go on. I could tell you about the young man whose demented parents utilised the blackets of magics to transform him into an ungodly half-beast to further their designs on world domination, near destroying his sanity. I could tell you about the entire race she forced to wander in eternal deathlessness, haunting their last surviving kinsman as he struggles daily to face his own existence in light of the death of all he knew. I could tell you about the man she forced to endure a gruelling quest, chasing a prophecy he didn't understand ... after she'd killed him off in the first chapter.


Please. What we ask of you is not much. It's nothing you'll have to risk your life for - unlike me, writing this post. There are noises behind me, but I daren't stop typing. I had to tell you. I had to. For the sake of myself and my companions. 


You can save us. You can get us out of this living nightmare, and all you have to do is -


What's that noise?


I thought you said we'd ... what do you mean she ...


OH GODS NO!

*grngwjejfkjghio_jjrjiofwoifoGIWJEBJJIDJJGJKbinee*

GET BACK IN THERE YOU LITTLE WRETCH!

Sorry about that readers. Now, where were we...

- Charley R

Beautiful People - March 2012

Because this is Beautiful People's one-year anniversary, Georgie and Skye have decided to do something special this month. It's an optional challenge focusing on … relationships! Not normally my cup of tea, but, you know what, I think it could be very good fun.

However, here I came across a slight hitch. Though the questions don’t state this specifically, I get the feeling this month’s questions are aimed at a romantic couple, rather than just a random pair of characters. Though I am working hard to sort out the romance factor of my Aeserion Trilogy rewrite, Rin’s sweetheart hasn’t got much more than a name at this stage, and it wouldn’t be much fun if I went and set their relationship down here only to have it eaten and sicked up on the carpet by a plot bunny overnight.

So, instead, I’ve decided to find the most interesting couple I have. You lot have met Vidal before, of course – he’s taken to haunting this blog, it seems. And today, with the aid of bribery, begging and a large pack of biscuits, the Bastard of Tanelorn has agreed to grace us all with his presence. With him, you’ll meet Lady Arystel Greysong – a classy, high-society Kinswoman. A bored, classy high-society Kinswoman.

Now then – let’s see what they’ve got to say for themselves:


1. Do they believe in anything that most people think is impossible?

Vidal: I’ve seen ice burn, kings wear rags and fools lead armies. I’ll not discount the truth in anything nowadays.

Arystel: I’d say there were plenty of impossible things in this world. I’m not half the conspiracy theorist Vidal is.


2. Are they strong, or the "damsel/knight in distress" sort?

Vidal: *raises an eyebrow* Does the fact that people call me “The Bastard” not say enough?

Arystel: I doubt I’ll ever need to be rescued. I’m not stupid enough to get myself into distress in the first place.


3. Do they have a special place? (e.g. a corner in his/her bedroom, under a tree...)

Vidal: Please excuse me while I go and cough up a hairball. All this whimsical nonsense is upsetting my stomach.

Arystel: *rolls her eyes at Vidal* I’m fond of the riverside, but there’s a particular peace about the Bonegrounds. I sometimes go and sit with my sisters of an afternoon. They don’t talk much, but, well, I like to think they’d enjoy catching up on the gossip.


4. What occupation do they have, or plan on having?

Arystel: Ha, as if I have any choice in the matter! I’ll be married and settle down to the job of trying to squeeze out a squalling heir for whichever manner of respectable man I’m given to. *she sticks her tongue out in disgust*

Vidal: Occupation? Well, I wouldn’t call it that, but I do have something to do with my time. The pay isn’t fantastic, but there are certain perks to the job. *he yawns* Pity about the death-threats, really.


5. Explain their last crisis. How had they changed when they came out of it?

Vidal: *bark-laughs* Crisis?! I’m a crisis on legs!

Arystel: And as if he wasn’t bad enough, there’s the small matter of a civil war … oh, you mean personally? Oh, I don’t do those. Not at all.


6. If they could drive any kind of car they wanted, what would it be?

*Vidal and Arystel both stare blankly.*


7. How do they deal with change?

Vidal: I don’t “deal with it”. It deals with me.

Arystel: There’s no point in arguing with things one can’t alter. Much easier to sit and watch and work around it if necessary.


8. If they had to amputate one body part, which one would they choose?

Arystel: What sort of bizarre question is that? Oh, I suppose it would have to be the middle finger on my left hand. It’s a pretty useless appendage really.

Vidal: It might also help with your incurable swearing problem.

Arystel: *looking affronted* Look who’s talking! What about you then?

Vidal: The idiot who thinks he’s removing my limbs has another thing coming. Perhaps he’ll learn a lesson or two about sociable behaviour while he’s scraping his entrails off the walls.


9. What would their favorite be at the local coffee shop? 

Vidal: Coffee? You mean that vile smelly drink the traders have started importing from the lowlands?

Arystel: It’s for drinking? And here I was thinking it was some sort of lotion or cure for chest infections.

Vidal: Really? Ah … perhaps I ought to apologise to Asphodel after all … I thought it was my uncle making another piss-poor attempt to poison me.


And here are the extra 5:

1. How did they meet?

Arystel: We met at one of my brother’s dinner parties – he’d spoken so much about Vidal I thought I had to come and see this infamous creature for myself.

Vidal: A very scintillating discussion we had too – I think it was something about the origins of the bloodlines?

Arystel: Yes. I think it all started when Yallar Fairwind started rambling on about blood superiority and we had to correct him …

Vidal: Oh, I remember now. Strange, for such a talkative fellow he didn’t talk much after that …


2. How do these two deal with conflict?

Arystel: I don’t do conflict. It gets rather tiresome after a time.

Vidal: Conflict and I have a special arrangement. He scratches my back, I scratch his. *He smiles, showing off a set of glittering sharp teeth*


3. Do they have a special song, phrase, item, or place? 

Arystel: Well, there’s my family motto … oh, you mean between the two of us?

*She looks at Vidal. He looks back. Both of them snort with mirth*


4. What kind of things do they like to do together?

Arystel: *in a mocking, sighing tone* Oh, romantic strolls in the forest, dancing at high society balls, buying trinkets in the marketplace, dining with our friends –

Vidal: *smirking* Gazing at the stars in each other’s embrace.

Arystel: Yes. Sometimes Vidal comes and serenades me outside my window –

Vidal: When I’m not writing ardent love poetry.

Arystel: Oh, *she clasps her hand to her heart* how could I ever forget!

*The two burst out laughing again*


5. Describe their relationship as a whole in 3 words or less.

Vidal: *picking up a note that Charley has shoved to him across the table* Errr … “Bonnie and Clyde”?

Arystel: Fascinating. As much as I’d love to sit about and ponder the immense improbabilities of our author’s brain, I’m afraid I have more pressing needs to attend to. Imladris Noonlight wants me to come and join her for supper – apparently she’s had a deer bought in especially for the occasion.

Vidal: Oh, enjoy that. If you see her father, tell him I send my condolences.

Arystel: Whatever for?

Vidal: *cackles* You’ll see. You’ll see.

Curse your Sudden but Inevitable Betrayal! - Charley R's Guide to Traitors

Following on from - and perhaps inspired by - my last post Liar, Liar... I have decided to donate this guide to those characters that are either everyone's favourite, or the ones we want to murder with a pointy stick and a can of sardines. I'm surprised these characters aren't as popular as they could be - you'd have thought an opportunity to scare the pants off the other characters, twist your plot up like a sandy beach towel, generate huge hissy fits in the readership and whip out your very best evil laugh would be near irresistible to an author, no matter how small their evil streak.

So, in order to indulge my own (enormous) sadistic tendency, I'm going to hand this post over to the worst of the worst - the cowards, egotists, sadists and million different breeds of general git. Rotten tomatoes will also be handed out at the end of the presentation for pelting of author or persons portrayed here, depending on your preference.

Now then, dear readers, let's find out ... which one of these wonderful people would make the perfect turncoat?

***

Suspect Number One: Administration, Advice and Anarchy.

We begin our investigation into traitors with one of the simplest and most well-known archetypes - the backstabbing advisor or second-in-command. Common haunts include high fantasy, political thriller and some murder mysteries. Motives vary depending on the situation - it could be anything from an inferiority complex, thwarted or jealousy of love, a stupidly low salary, the boss' annoying habit of ruffling their hair and calling them "boy-o", or the usual warmongering, power-hungriness or mental instability.

Known aliases: Grima Wormtongue, Iago.

Pros: Politics is a brutal business, so it's hardly implausible that, sooner or later, the Head Honcho's backup might turn nasty. Motives are easy to concoct, and there's plenty of variety to be had to spice things up. They've also got the added advantage of being perfect catalysts for civil wars and mad campaigns of genocide and opression, or alternately being used as puppets by some darker Big Bad Overlord, due to their flexibility of nature and drive.

Cons: Face it, we've all seen these guys too many times to be surprised when they whip out the knives. Especially if they're portrayed in that awfully cliche'd fashion (greasy hair, pasty skin, suspicious twitch) and walk around muttering about world domination like Kreacher on crack. There's no point in having a traitor character at all if we know who it's going to be!

Final Verdicit: Easy to find, useful, but not terribly bright. More interesting candidates available.

Suspect Number Two: HE WAS THEIR FRIEND!

A close cousin of Suspect Number One, we have the backstabber who lives a little closer to home. Has been sighted on multiple occasions in almost every genre, and most motives seem to involve some incarnation of jealousy against the hero(ine) of the tale, or a feeling that working for the "other side" will fulfill the gaping hole in their lives that tells them they must be something bigger and better than everyone else.

Known aliases: Peter Pettigrew.

Pros: There's no way to break the heart of your central character (and the readership that loves them) like having them turned on by someone they thought the could trust. Unlike snaky advisors, friends are not the people we'd expect to turn traitor, so the element of surprise factor is very much in their favour. Making the readership watch a well-loved character slowly nurse their festering wounds against the hero for the big moment is also a greatly under-appreciated technique. Treacherous friends also have brilliant potential to become "grey-area" villains later in the plot and - you guessed it - their dual nature as friend and foe is yet another pointy weapon with which to torture the readers!

Cons: If the motive isn't credible for the character, the whole charade falls to pieces. Friends are harder to turn against other characters, and - sometimes - the fact that the hero(ine) refuses to take a swing at them for old time's sake can get a little grating. This sort of character is also a lot more prone to irritating "superiority" monologues than "professional" villains.

Final Verdict: Read the contract carefully before you hire this one.

Suspect Number Three: Whose Side Are You On Again?

Ah, the double agent. Both protagonist and arch-nemesis in many a spy-based thriller (or any book involving intrigue, really), working out where this lot stand is one of the most entertaining pursuits of any reader. No matter what you see them doing - chatting with Mr Nice, helping Mr Nasty pin up the blueprints of his doomsday machine or singing to Britney Spears in the shower - nothing they do will tell you anything more about them. To trust .... or not to trust?

Known aliases: Severus Snape, Varys the Spider.

Pros: The sheer ambuguity and lack of certainty with a double agent character is their greatest attraction. Who knows if they're double-crossing, or even triple-crossing, the hero? Are they bluffing? Are they lying? What is the hidden meaning behind those glittering eyes? What's that shiny thing lurking up their sleeve? Red herrings are a double agent's best friend, and sometimes you don't even need to tell the reader definitively who's side they're on at all, but let their actions eventually show their loyalties ... or lack of them.

Cons: Too many signs in a short space of time may confuse your reader more than intrigue them, but the absolute worst thing about a double agent is how easy it is to make them contrived. Their motives can be incredibly hard to fathom and gradually show to the readers without exposition, and there's nothing worse than setting a character up beautifully and then, suddenly "Oh, it turns out they're on OUR side all along!" and then rattle off some very tenuous links to one side or another. They're complex people who require incredibly careful planning - probably more so than any other sort of traitor.

Final Verdict: Spectacular agents, but watch your back. You never know when you might find something sticking out of it ...

Suspect Number Four: The Voices Are Telling Me To Kill You...
Ooer, anybody got a straight-jacket? It's always the crazy ones who'll bite you in the butt at the last minute. And they needn't even be that crazy - in fact, the majority of "mad" traitors aren't the types who run around with chickens on their heads claiming to the the Queen of The Math Fairies. You'll find them just about everywhere, living normal, or next to normal, lives, looking just like you or me ... until you scratch beneath the surface. Deluded, desperate or downtrodden ... and, maybe, just a tiny bit doolally.
Known Aliases: Murtagh Morzansson, Petyr Littlefinger, Jaime Lannister.


Pros: Though it may sound a little strange, the damaged traitors are often the most likely to be the ones the readers will feel sorry for. Come on, wouldn't your heart ache if you knew the only reason this character was doing the horrible things they do was because they honestly believed it would be for the best, or because they've become to utterly broken by their lives that, to them, this is the only logical course of action? Villains are clever, rememeber, and they find nothing more enjoyable than finding weaknesses and twisting or forcing people into their service. In the case of Murtagh up there, he didn't have any choice when he was forced to betray his half-brother and fight for an evil king. Can you really call him a traitor for that? As for Jaime, well, wouldn't you finish of Mad King Aerys in those circumstances, too?


Cons: One word: angst. If your traitor spends more time bewailing what has become of them than acting on their orders / beliefs / crazed desires, you know they've been drinking too much coffee. Using this approach simply to get your character a sympathy vote does NOT count as complete justification for what they do - odds are they DO have an alternative, if they're really that noble. Even if it does involve death.


Final Verdict: As long as they take their meds, and you don't let them read the newspaper, they ought to operate just fine.

***

Of course, there are a multitude of other variants and degrees of treachery that this world of thugs and thieves can throw at us, but it's good to have an idea of alternatives. No matter how iffy their morals, remember that even sneaks like these are people too, and their motives will be different depending on their character, circumstances, and whatever horrors you plan to inflict on them in the course of the story.

Mixing and matching different aspects of villain models can also create a more dynamic character - what about a supposedly treacherous advisor acting as a double agent? What about the hero(ine)'s best friend being exploited and twisted by the villain until they're tricked into betraying their friend?

Much like methods of assassination, the possibilities really are endless.

- Charley R