October 24, 2017, 10:41:46 AM

Author Topic: Farmboy of Destiny  (Read 1282 times)

Offline Peat

Re: Farmboy of Destiny
« Reply #15 on: August 23, 2017, 06:36:13 AM »

Hmmmm.... so if I want to stick with an M/C who seems like a greedy douche, has no birthright, isn't chosen, isn't super great at much but can pick a lock or two, and has no agency until the end of the story where he becomes hated by everyone in the kingdom for what he's done....but beneath it all really wants to do the right thing... am I shit out of luck?  How do I do a better job of hooking the reader into the character, setting and plot in the beginning

You are probably shit out of luck.

You can take some risks in taking the difficult option for a character who you want to have the readers' sympathy. Shadow in American Gods is passive, Jorg is a raging douchecanoe, plenty of characters don't have shiny cool powers... but if you're taking all the risks, you're probably not going to make it work. I'm all for authors being brave and bullheaded but you're gonna have to work double shift to produce something compelling out of that.

And, even as someone who likes passive characters, I don't get why you'd want to keep the guy stripped of agency in this situation.

Re The Belgariad thing

Spoiler for Hiden:
Garion is our MC. He spends pretty much the entire adventure in the company of one of his two mentors and generally does what he's told. He's also got an incarnate prophecy living in his head that occasionally takes over his body and acts directly, and frequently provides instructions on how to do things. Plus, at the end, he basically realises another character has always been star of the show.

As for how Eddings gets away with it... I'm not utterly sure. I love-hate the series; I love it ironically while also studying it intently to see how anyone could make it huge writing what he did. Part of it is its incredibly charming (if you like that sort of thing); the characters constantly banter with each other and its great. Funny characters can get away with a lot that other characters can't, funny authors can get away with choices others can't. Part of it was he was great at working with stereotypes. Part of it, well, part of I have no idea.

That said, even then, there are many small moments of agency and that counts for a lot. Bradley, I think you're getting caught up a lot in the whole "I'm going to counter-attack the Forsaken with my new power up" levels of agency and ignoring the small stuff that reveals a character's personality and gives them direction.

"I'll sass the teacher even when I'm already in trouble because my father's memory is precious to me" - "I'll mourn the old watch wher that was my only friend even if everyone wants me to hurry off and ride a dragon" - "I'll be more worried about whether the horse carrying my love makes it than anything else" - "I'll temporarily deny my birthright so my siblings get what they want" - "I'll keep sneaking away from my great new life to see my only friend" - and on and on. Your character doesn't have to want to move heaven and earth. In fact, it works better if he doesn't. Just wanting to do right by a friend, or family, or even some stranger, is enough.

You look at the Rand/Harry examples I posted? That's what was going on there. Harry sticking up for Ron, Rand trying to save Mat... these things happen pretty early. The reader is not waiting for the other shoe to drop at all. They are all showing what they're about long before they get their powers.

In case I haven't hammered the point home enough yet, the most important form of agency is about characters chasing what's important to them, not having their special powers, and the most important thing to human beings are their strong emotional ties which are usually friends (but occasionally an ideal, but that one's harder to do).

And you shouldn't be making the readers wait for that. If your MC has strong emotional attachments, use them early. If your MC doesn't have emotional attachments at all then... really good luck with that one.

Also, while I've concentrated mainly on all the nice positive sides of agency and emotional attachment... people read Prince of Thorns. They read American Psycho, they watched House of Cards, and everything else with a pretty unrepentant antihero. They don't have to be nice - but they do have to be compelling. And if they're not nice, then they need to be funny... but if they're not funny, or if they're actively nasty, then they need to be really compelling. (its also pretty commonplace to make their antagonist even worse).

To be compelling though, they need agency. Their big motivations. The things that make their villainy understandable. Incidentally, villains still have save the cat moments. Save the Cat doesn't have to be a nice sympathy winning thing. Its a signature "Do something notable and memorable early that earns the audience's respect and interest" thing. Which is usually being nice, but you know, sometimes you just wanna write a fucknugget.

Your list is missing a few important ones with the most crucial one being "What is the question the readers are hoping to see answered later in the book?" If your readers don't want to know why things are happening you're fooked so that means you need to a) have things happening b) leave some trailing ends as to why its happening.

Pixar has a rule saying the first time the character is shown on screen, they should be shown doing the thing they do best (which means what Harry Potter does best is suffer and endure which is actually pretty accurate). I like this rule. You can't do it with their actions with a FoD because they can't balefire the living crap out of an army but you can certainly do it with the emotions behind their actions (which is what cupiscent has been getting at). Maybe it doesn't have to be the first we see of them, but you need to do it early.

Also - eyepatch/hook isn't hinting at greatness - its just simply a couple of larger than life details that make it easy to remember the character. There's no greatness in the fact that Harry Dresden is 7' tall and dresses like a cowboy, but it does make him a little more memorable. Its a cheap trick that works better in cinema, but its still useful.

As for the no mentor/revelation thing...

a) They've probably read your blurb which is probably warning them the other shoe will drop
b) Chance meeting with a seer, reading about a vague prophecy, prologue, odd birthmark... lots of options. Plus, genre-savvy readers won't know much.
c) Who cares? Agency as a human being will win or lose you this battle anyway.

When we come down to it, people concentrate a lot on the agency of being in control with FoDs and sure that's important, but human agency is what matters most. Shadows in American Gods is the only character I can think of who's mostly free of human agency. It works because

a) American Gods is one of the greatest fantasy novel concepts ever
b) Neil Gaiman is an incredibly talented author
c) Shadow is likeable, his blankness is kinda symbolic/worthy, and he does sorta grow some agency.

And even then, lots of people would just say it doesn't work.

My three step guide to writing an interesting character would be thus:

a) Create an interesting character. Douchey semi-talented thief with no real goals doesn't cut it. Super spy who has failed in all he values and Adventure hungry but ordinary gentleman who has inherited the world's most dangerous treasure do. Wizard who's a PI and is mistrusted by the Wizard Council and is Marked by Supernatural Gribblies and has a Mental Family is arguably cooking with octarine... and arguably too much.

b) Attach them to the plot emotionally so everything is guided by their wants and reveals who they are

c) Write it like a damn ninja.

This post was brought to you by "Wishing I Was Drunk" industries.

Offline The Gem Cutter

  • Captain Analogy
  • Writing Group
  • Master Namer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2234
  • Total likes: 1683
  • Gender: Male
  • We've exhausted all possibilities - time to begin.
    • View Profile
    • The Gem Cutter Tales
Re: Farmboy of Destiny
« Reply #16 on: August 23, 2017, 12:36:03 PM »

Hmmmm.... so if I want to stick with an M/C who seems like a greedy douche, has no birthright, isn't chosen, isn't super great at much but can pick a lock or two, and has no agency until the end of the story where he becomes hated by everyone in the kingdom for what he's done....but beneath it all really wants to do the right thing... am I shit out of luck?  How do I do a better job of hooking the reader into the character, setting and plot in the beginning
1. A M/C who seems like a greedy douche: Schindler from Schindler's list starts as a greedy war-profiting, lecherous douche - but in a world of murderous psychopaths, he's a saint. His charisma and style help us over the transition. As the video I posted stated - we measure characters against the other characters on the stage. So long as there's someone worse, he's not so bad.

2. Has no birthright: this is a potential strength, as it is very very sympathetic. None of us have a birthright, either. Make birthrights a negative - something characters we hate have -and penalize him for it.

3. He isn't chosen: I don't know what you mean - chosen by destiny or the people or what. But again, very sympathetic if you posit it well - we all know what it's not like to be chosen. In my work, a central theme is that the people who are supposed to make great discoveries almost never are the ones who do. Deep in most cultures is a concept (described better by Simon Sinek's TED talks on leadership) that those who are chosen - the rich and powerful - are allowed the enviable position of leader because when shit gets rough they are SUPPOSED to deal with it. This unspoken covenant is critical to society and groups. The leader gets laid, gets fed, sleeps above the mud. But s/he's supposed to lead the ass-kicking when we need them to. In other words, if you have your character do this stuff without the bennies of being the leader, he's super empathetic. If you have those who do have position fail to step up - they're super the opposite, aka villains worth hating.

4. He isn't super great at much but can pick a lock or two: this hinges on whether he picks up more competencies. But if you look carefully, the M/C from Jurassic park, Dr. Whatshisface, has no skills and although he does have knowledge, he's in an action film. But as his initial scene illustrates, he is a skilled improviser with common sense. Coincidentally, this is some of the best character-arc stuff you can find.

5. Hated by everyone for what he's done: does this mean the audience or his world? If it's his world, so long as the readers love him, who cares?

6. Unsure what the agency discussion relates to, but it has the feel of breathing rarified air.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2017, 12:39:52 PM by The Gem Cutter »
The Gem Cutter
"Each time, there is the same problem: do I dare? And then if you do dare, the dangers are there, and the help also, and the fulfillment or the fiasco. There's always the possibility of a fiasco. But there's also the possibility of bliss." - Joseph Campbell

Offline Lanko

  • Sherlanko Holmes, Jiin Wei and Writing Contest Regular
  • Writing Group
  • Khaleesi
  • *
  • Posts: 2582
  • Total likes: 1764
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Lanko's Goodreads
Re: Farmboy of Destiny
« Reply #17 on: August 23, 2017, 04:43:27 PM »
I certainly think he's an inspiration of the trope. But an actual example? If he is, he's very far from a perfect one.

But that's the point of subverting the trope, isn't it? Or at least adding new ingredients to it.

But that's also an interesting thought. Thinking about it, who would be the perfect example of the trope?

My first thought was Luke Skywalker, but even he doesn't fit the trope perfectly. And now thinking, who actually does? Even a farmboy like Luke breaks some conventions with deep understanding of technology like fixing androids, flying pods and etc.

Anyway, Luke came after LoTR, so who inspired him? The farmboy to greatness trope started when Campbell organized his study of mythology and realized societies were either agrarian or hunters.

Characters like Conan come from hunter societies - nomads, constantly moving, self-reliance, almost always warrior culture, experience on the world and life gained through too much contact and conflict with different lands and people, etc - and farmboys from agrarian societies - settled, community motivated/reliant, little conflict/peaceful, lack of deeper knowledge of the world and life, "living in a bubble" syndrome.

I don't know if it was Campbell that made people aware of those common approaches or if he was the one who established them and only much later through constant reading and analysis people pointed it out, but as time passed there was a new... template, for lack of a better word right now.

With the rise of urbanization we became settled, but not with the common "problems"/aspects of agrarian society. And curiously gained things from the hunter part as well.

But anyway, that's how stories pretty much started. A farmer type forced out of his comfort zone and to distant lands and people or a hunter type forcing himself forward to distant lands and people.

I wonder if this new... template... has a name like farmboy or warrior hunter. City boy? Not necessarily meaning modern or urban fantasy, but one who encompasses more our current reality. Campbell also noticed this, and he actually talks and may have a classification (I will look into it later), talks about rites of passages of old and new (like receiving a car at 18) and such.

If previously people wanted adventure, quests, treasure and change/save the world, today people want to mostly known the world and change/save it isn't as clear cut as it was. Treasure and adventures got replaced by people introspecting to know themselves and success, riches and fame are now achieved with many different approaches. Instead of new places, it's now their place in their current known world.

That's because previously as a farmer/hunter (broadly speaking) the character would find new places, and would be forced out of his nest.

But now we are neither farmers nor hunters. We're mostly settled but without most of its drawbacks and even gained some of the hunters' benefits.
And they too, as City boy can come into contact with many different people because of the city itself, something a farm would hardly do - and without the dangers hunters usually faced. I guess this is where we are unconsciously talking about "not needing to be active", as city life (again, broadly using the term) allows other approaches to problems than farmer/hunter.

I wonder then if that's the cause of most introspective protagonists, who may share some elements with farmer/hunter but are clearly neither. Or where the quest is mostly highly emotional, finding one's place, and the sense or need of the self is much more evident. The deeper knowledge of oneself (character), their relationships and emotional attachment become more important than the abstract journey through other lands, battles and such.

YA is mostly know for this type of story, and I wonder if its success is based on this approach, the "city boy" (if there's a term for this I don't know or don't remember) that even when being in an ancient settings has the "modern arc" of needs, desires, what's important and not and etc.
I wonder if those authors, knowingly or not, tap into this on the genre.
Slow and steady wins the race.

Lanko's Year in Books 2017

Offline Peat

Re: Farmboy of Destiny
« Reply #18 on: August 24, 2017, 02:52:45 AM »

But that's the point of subverting the trope, isn't it? Or at least adding new ingredients to it.

Well yeah. But at some point, sufficient change/difference results in being something else entirely. Which I believe Frodo is.

Quote
But that's also an interesting thought. Thinking about it, who would be the perfect example of the trope?

Rand Al'Thor and Belgarion. Both grow up on honest to god farms with a marked degree of isolation, are marked heavily by destiny, and undergo a coming of age ordeal that sees them go from grass green hicks to He-Man McGandalf on steroids. I would argue that they're the two characters who led to this being a fantasy trope and as such, the template is basically them. Oh! And both orphans, I forgot that little detail. That said...

Quote
My first thought was Luke Skywalker, but even he doesn't fit the trope perfectly. And now thinking, who actually does? Even a farmboy like Luke breaks some conventions with deep understanding of technology like fixing androids, flying pods and etc.

I'd love to have talks with Eddings/Jordan about the influence of Star Wars, because he seems such a ur-example. He's certainly a great example.

Incidentally, I don't a deep technical knowledge of how specific things work breaks the trope. It's ignorance of the wider world/universe that counts.

Quote
Anyway, Luke came after LoTR, so who inspired him? The farmboy to greatness trope started when Campbell organized his study of mythology and realized societies were either agrarian or hunters.

Him being? If Lucas/Luke, then yeah, Campbell was a noted influence, although I really doubt he as the only influence. Star Wars was a kitchen sink of everything Lucas found cool after all... myth, Japanese film, Flash Gordon, Dune, everything...

If we're talking Frodo/Tolkien, then Tolkien finished before Campbell published insofar as I'm aware, so certainly not him. My guess would be Frodo came from an agrarian society because Tolkien did and idolised them.

Quote
Characters like Conan come from hunter societies - nomads, constantly moving, self-reliance, almost always warrior culture, experience on the world and life gained through too much contact and conflict with different lands and people, etc - and farmboys from agrarian societies - settled, community motivated/reliant, little conflict/peaceful, lack of deeper knowledge of the world and life, "living in a bubble" syndrome.

I don't know if it was Campbell that made people aware of those common approaches or if he was the one who established them and only much later through constant reading and analysis people pointed it out, but as time passed there was a new... template, for lack of a better word right now.

With the rise of urbanization we became settled, but not with the common "problems"/aspects of agrarian society. And curiously gained things from the hunter part as well.

But anyway, that's how stories pretty much started. A farmer type forced out of his comfort zone and to distant lands and people or a hunter type forcing himself forward to distant lands and people.


I am somewhat out of my depth here, this being something I've not studied much (I find Campbell's prose boring, sad to say) but what about stories where the character doesn't really leave home all that much? Like Horatius at the bridge, or the Cattle Raid of Cooley?

In any case, the FoD isn't so much a representative of an agrarian society as an isolated one. I think the term Farmboy here is actually a big distraction because while the classic examples are farmboys, there's plenty of fantasy Chosen Ones who fit the template save for the bit where they come from an isolated background rather than from the back of the plough. Like Harry Potter. Nobody's disputing him as an example and I'm guessing Harry might well have not known what a chicken looked like until reaching Hogwarts.

Quote
I wonder if this new... template... has a name like farmboy or warrior hunter. City boy? Not necessarily meaning modern or urban fantasy, but one who encompasses more our current reality. Campbell also noticed this, and he actually talks and may have a classification (I will look into it later), talks about rites of passages of old and new (like receiving a car at 18) and such.

If previously people wanted adventure, quests, treasure and change/save the world, today people want to mostly known the world and change/save it isn't as clear cut as it was. Treasure and adventures got replaced by people introspecting to know themselves and success, riches and fame are now achieved with many different approaches. Instead of new places, it's now their place in their current known world.

That's because previously as a farmer/hunter (broadly speaking) the character would find new places, and would be forced out of his nest.

But now we are neither farmers nor hunters. We're mostly settled but without most of its drawbacks and even gained some of the hunters' benefits.
And they too, as City boy can come into contact with many different people because of the city itself, something a farm would hardly do - and without the dangers hunters usually faced. I guess this is where we are unconsciously talking about "not needing to be active", as city life (again, broadly using the term) allows other approaches to problems than farmer/hunter.

I wonder then if that's the cause of most introspective protagonists, who may share some elements with farmer/hunter but are clearly neither. Or where the quest is mostly highly emotional, finding one's place, and the sense or need of the self is much more evident. The deeper knowledge of oneself (character), their relationships and emotional attachment become more important than the abstract journey through other lands, battles and such.

YA is mostly know for this type of story, and I wonder if its success is based on this approach, the "city boy" (if there's a term for this I don't know or don't remember) that even when being in an ancient settings has the "modern arc" of needs, desires, what's important and not and etc.
I wonder if those authors, knowingly or not, tap into this on the genre.

Possibly. I'm reluctant to call the modern FoD trope as anything other than the product of a pretty urbanised society or say its unfitting to modern needs. I mean, if we accept Harry as one, then he's apparently incredibly well suited to them.

Ironically... if you want a fantasy hero who is highly introspective and where their interior quest (i.e. personal growth, emotional attachments, so on) is more important than their external quest (new lands, new people, fighting enemies) and who come from a connected society... Frodo seems to fit.

Arguably, as subcultures grow more diverse and cities more anonymous, the urbanised person has more need of stories about people from isolated environments going into the wider world and finding acceptance and success than people from the close knit villages of the past ever did.
This is the blog of Peat - http://peatlong.blogspot.co.uk/

Offline Lanko

  • Sherlanko Holmes, Jiin Wei and Writing Contest Regular
  • Writing Group
  • Khaleesi
  • *
  • Posts: 2582
  • Total likes: 1764
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Lanko's Goodreads
Re: Farmboy of Destiny
« Reply #19 on: August 24, 2017, 05:11:46 AM »
Hmmmm.... so if I want to stick with an M/C who seems like a greedy douche, has no birthright, isn't chosen, isn't super great at much but can pick a lock or two, and has no agency until the end of the story where he becomes hated by everyone in the kingdom for what he's done....but beneath it all really wants to do the right thing... am I shit out of luck?  How do I do a better job of hooking the reader into the character, setting and plot in the beginning

Before me and Peat hijack Bradley's thread, I say you're not shit out of luck.

Simply put, fiction (not just Fantasy) isn't just wish-fulfillment escapism along funny and relatable comrades. We also read to discover people, events and places that we wouldn't otherwise know or even think about.

I also don't buy the whole "relatable" (or sympathethic) thing. As someone said and I saved it, " A need for "Relatable" is a sign of a failure to engage with the work or text, a failure to get beyond one's own concerns to confront the unfamiliar and the uncomfortable." When the word "relatable" really means "relevant to me," as it often does, than anything outside the purview of "relatability" looks like it's not worth examining.

Which is absurd not only in Fantasy but in fiction.

Peat gave some very useful advice in handling some issues but maybe for the wrong type of characters, because if the character starts or remains a greedy douche, they kinda of defeat that purpose. Yes, Jon saves the cat, but Jon isn't and was never a douche. Harry stands up for Ron, but Harry also isn't and never was a greedy douche.

Let's look at First Law. Jezal dan Luthar is a douche and remains so not only for the first book but for 90% of the whole trilogy. When he isn't a douche he is constantly whining and bitching while being ordered around by Bayaz and others.
There's very little redeeming about Jorg Ancrath. Fitz Chivalry isn't (mostly) a douche, but he has very little agency, does stupid things that makes you gasp out loud, trains for years as an assassin and becomes an extremely incompetent one. He can also be extremely brooding and childish. But he is an abandoned, traumatized teen and that was his portrayal.

All established and famous characters in their genre.

I would be careful in adding stuff to make characters look more sympathetic or with agency simply out of fear (and fear is at the bottom of the issue) of what some readers might think.
Specially when not well executed, the character may look contradictory, or worse, make the reader realize the author is too self-aware and the progression of the character is an artificial one born out of the author's need to make a character relatable.

Well, we could say every character progression is a manipulation by the author to make a character at least compelling.
But there is good execution and then there is the terrible ones when anyone can see the obviousness of the author.

So your character is a greedy douche, isn't chosen, can just pick a lock or two, does something despicable and becomes hated but wanted to do the right thing and has no real agency until the end? That's fine. Well executed you don't need to make you MC relatable, sympathetic, funny and a self-sacrificing bro to boot it.

Oscar Wilde can complement it: "There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.”
Slow and steady wins the race.

Lanko's Year in Books 2017

Offline Peat

Re: Farmboy of Destiny
« Reply #20 on: August 24, 2017, 07:28:06 AM »

Simply put, fiction (not just Fantasy) isn't just wish-fulfillment escapism along funny and relatable comrades. We also read to discover people, events and places that we wouldn't otherwise know or even think about.

I also don't buy the whole "relatable" (or sympathethic) thing. As someone said and I saved it, " A need for "Relatable" is a sign of a failure to engage with the work or text, a failure to get beyond one's own concerns to confront the unfamiliar and the uncomfortable." When the word "relatable" really means "relevant to me," as it often does, than anything outside the purview of "relatability" looks like it's not worth examining.

Which is absurd not only in Fantasy but in fiction.

Is it? I read for pleasure. I have 5 unread library books, 10+ unread books on my kindle, 10+ unread books that I physically own, and a list of about... I have no idea how many books that I'd like to read that do not fit into that. Nevermind my love of re-reading.

If a book doesn't quickly engage me and show that its concerns are interesting, why should I read that book instead of some of the 25 minimum other books I could be reading? I'm gonna miss out on some of the books I want to read, why should the book in front of me get read and not the one next to me? I currently have 100 books in eye view, 2 in arms reach, plus 50 odd on my kindle.

And what if I was an agent, getting 20 queries a day, requesting manuscripts from maybe 1 in 20? Even if I wanted to dig deep into everything, I don't think I'd be physically able to without spending 12 hours a day working with that sort of word count to deal with. There's agents with backlogs of 700-1000 queries out there.

This is the sort of competition any one author's book is against. If I don't engage with the text, I'm not the loser here, because I'm sorted for books. The author is. And a lot of these books make it really easy for me to engage with the book while also confronting the unfamiliar and uncomfortable later on. I don't need to trawl through something I don't enjoy to find something worthwhile.


Anyway, a few antihero/villainous Save the Cat/Kick the Cat moments/shows of early agency

- Jorg killing the guy in his band who's questioning him. Bam, Jorg's ruthlessness/need for control is established
- Frank Underwood strangling a dying dog in House of Cards because he doesn't like useless things
- Vince Vega laughing about how different McDonalds is in Europe while on his way to kill some dude, while also telling the story of the time his boss threw a guy out of the window over a foot massage (establishing there's even worse people out there)
- Rorschach ranting away to himself about how everyone in New York has it coming
- Thomas Covenant raping a woman to check whether he's in a real place
- Monza grumps her way through Orso's victory speech

Most of those things are pretty unsympathetic but they do give us a good sign of what the character is about and that makes them interesting. Compelling. And... sometimes, sympathetic despite them being nasty.

Quote
So your character is a greedy douche, isn't chosen, can just pick a lock or two, does something despicable and becomes hated but wanted to do the right thing and has no real agency until the end? That's fine. Well executed you don't need to make you MC relatable, sympathetic, funny and a self-sacrificing bro to boot it.

Given that a publisher told him they didn't like his MC, maybe it isn't fine. It could be entirely execution based but there's a real strong possibility at least some of it is down to the concept.
This is the blog of Peat - http://peatlong.blogspot.co.uk/

Offline Lanko

  • Sherlanko Holmes, Jiin Wei and Writing Contest Regular
  • Writing Group
  • Khaleesi
  • *
  • Posts: 2582
  • Total likes: 1764
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Lanko's Goodreads
Re: Farmboy of Destiny
« Reply #21 on: August 24, 2017, 06:35:52 PM »
Is it? I read for pleasure. I have 5 unread library books, 10+ unread books on my kindle, 10+ unread books that I physically own, and a list of about... I have no idea how many books that I'd like to read that do not fit into that. Nevermind my love of re-reading.

If a book doesn't quickly engage me and show that its concerns are interesting, why should I read that book instead of some of the 25 minimum other books I could be reading? I'm gonna miss out on some of the books I want to read, why should the book in front of me get read and not the one next to me? I currently have 100 books in eye view, 2 in arms reach, plus 50 odd on my kindle.

And that's the difference. It's your preference only. What you find pleasurable others may not. What you dislike others may not have a problem with. What is engaging for you is not for others and vice-versa. And besides, most people aren't usually just engaged by the same things all the time.

There are markets and audiences for everything.

And what if I was an agent, getting 20 queries a day, requesting manuscripts from maybe 1 in 20? Even if I wanted to dig deep into everything, I don't think I'd be physically able to without spending 12 hours a day working with that sort of word count to deal with. There's agents with backlogs of 700-1000 queries out there.

This is the sort of competition any one author's book is against. If I don't engage with the text, I'm not the loser here, because I'm sorted for books. The author is. And a lot of these books make it really easy for me to engage with the book while also confronting the unfamiliar and uncomfortable later on. I don't need to trawl through something I don't enjoy to find something worthwhile.

The agent argument has some merit on the side of "engagement", but like I said, there isn't just one way to engage and the "sympathetic" argument falls short when even C.S. Lewis, Rowling and many others with sympathetic characters and engaging stories got dozens or hundreds of rejections from dozens or hundreds of agents/publishers while stuff like Prince of Thorns and other works with similar vibes had bidding wars for them.

I'm not saying to ignore and dismiss their advice, as they do have experience and knowledge, but simply to also take with some (or a lot) grain of salt.
One moment teen girl in a dystopian setting sounds silly for almost all of them and next thing you know is how a teen girl should be done, the setting of the moment and the thing they're voraciously hunting after.
Many, if not most, of polemic, thought provoking or just different types of works wouldn't have seem the light of day.

Anyway, a few antihero/villainous Save the Cat/Kick the Cat moments/shows of early agency

Again, The Farseer Trilogy by Robin Hobb does a good job in showing a character with very little agency throughout all three books (though in the third he has far more).

Fitz is an orphan boy who is sent to Bucktower. He really has no power, influence, is shy, traumatized by being separated abruptly from his mother, has no friends and is even considered a future threat by others.

And here's where Save/Kick the Cat doesn't need to be done by a protagonist to show him/her with a lot of agency. You can have others do it to the character.
Burrich, out of his own volition and not because he was ordered to, shelters Fitz and gives him a puppy dog. Someone (I forgot the name) treats Fitz badly and maliciously, he being a small child who did nothing wrong to that person.

So without the hero actually doing anything, you can engage the reader by stimulating feelings by what others do or say to him. Or even what the hero just manages to observe of the world around him without any kind of interaction.

And to that, let's look at the title and premise to see how it helps a slow book by promising something unusual. Assassin's Apprentice. A bastard boy who will grow and learn to kill people. There's nothing in the beginning (somewhere between 30 to 100 pages in, I don't remember exactly) that hints at this at all. It's all in the blurb and title.

If the book was called "The Orphan of Bucktower" probably many people would have bucked off from the book. But "Assassin's Apprentice" totally tells me this current meek and shy boy will eventually start killing people. So I can go through the lack of agency because of that promise, and even endure it for a hundred pages or even more. Because I want to see how this will happen. Who he'll kill and why. What he will pass through.

Will he be ordered to kill the guy who gave him a puppy dog? Will he have revenge on the guy who mistreated him? Will he work for that guy? Will that guy order him to kill the guy who gave him the dog? And so on.

The character did absolutely nothing yet I'm engaged.

So this an approach Bradley can take for his type of MC. If he isn't too active and sympathethic, we can still engage and feel for the character by what, how and why other characters do, feel and interact with th the MC.

In other words, if he can't save or kick the cat, turn him into the cat itself. Being the cat of the other characters, show me his beliefs, reactions and thoughts when he gets kicked or saved (saved meaning "doing something nice", as portrayed by the main definition, or everything other action in between) by the other characters. How he treats them, and so on.

There are probably many more approaches.
 
Given that a publisher told him they didn't like his MC, maybe it isn't fine. It could be entirely execution based but there's a real strong possibility at least some of it is down to the concept.

That's a fair point and is indeed hard and will all come down to pure speculation as we don't have his story, his received feedback, his execution and his intentions.

Anyway, another point to consider is, if the problem is the start, how it begins. For me stories should begin with a change, whether it's a little before, a little after or right at the moment.

For example, Fitz's story begins when he is pulled away from his mother, carried all the way to the castle town and thrown there. That's a really big change. Harry with the letters and the unusual behavior of his adoptive parents.
Even in GoT the mundane lives of the characters begin in relation to two changes going on, one unknown and the other known to the characters: The Walkers beyond the Wall, as seen in the prologue and the coming of Robert to Winterfell to make Ned his Hand.

Others like Prince of Thorns already start with the character changed and mostly set in his ways and what is left for us is to understand how he changed to that (and what he's gonna do next as slowly discover it).

So maybe Bradley started a little too early in the timeline of his character or is taking too much time to get to at least at a hint of the promise of how a character will change. Because like Fitz, even without agency, things leading to some change need to happen even if the character doesn't have a lot of agency.

Again, hard to tell without actually seeing the story.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2017, 06:42:35 PM by Lanko »
Slow and steady wins the race.

Lanko's Year in Books 2017

Online Yora

Re: Farmboy of Destiny
« Reply #22 on: August 24, 2017, 07:30:19 PM »
It's not all always about characters. A story can be made interesting through characters, but it can also be carried entirely by interesting things that are happening. The Lord of the Ring has flimsy thin characters. Characters in stories by Clark Ashton Smith have no characterization at all. Compelling characters are not a requirement to have a story that is worth telling. I recommend looking up The Tale of Satampra Zeiros, which is short and carried entirely by events happening to flat characters.
I don't see myself ever writing one of these "Farmboys of Destiny". Give me a warrior princess who's already received substantial education in the martial arts (and other skills pertinent to adventuring) any day.
My favorite character who came from nothing and became a powerful king of the greatest realm is Conan. Who we first meet while he is lamenting why he ever wanted to be a king. It's dull work and now people are trying to assassinate him, wishing back the times under the terrible tyrant from whom he had freed them. He's literally admitting that his greatest dream was to become a great king but never really spend a thought on what he would do then. Later on his backstory is revealed, but all that is said about it is that he was a total nobody who left his homeland because he was bored by it and dreamed of adventure. But the earliest adventure that is being told in full is one where is already quite decent at fighting and stealing. Everything before that is just not worth mentioning.

I think a reason why Luke Skywalker works is because he is not a nobody who is chosen by Destiny out of billions of other people. As soon as he runs into Obi-Wan he is getting told that he is part of an ongoing story because he's the son of one of the main characters and has only been hidden off screen temporarily. It could not have happened to anybody, but only to him.
Spriggan's Den

There is nothing to read!

Offline Peat

Re: Farmboy of Destiny
« Reply #23 on: August 24, 2017, 08:19:23 PM »

And that's the difference. It's your preference only. What you find pleasurable others may not. What you dislike others may not have a problem with. What is engaging for you is not for others and vice-versa. And besides, most people aren't usually just engaged by the same things all the time.

There are markets and audiences for everything.

This is true to a point. I know my preference for consuming lots of meat is pretty common. I also know my preference for peanut butter and chorizo bagels isn't.

Crucially, I am very sure that my preference for maximising the pleasure I get from my limited reading time when confronted by an overwhelming array of choices is really common. That was the thrust of my point. The result of which is a lot of readers who want to see something they like very quickly. And yes, there is a bewildering array of things that people like. But it is not infinite, particularly if you're hoping to find a market big enough to support being commercially published.

Quote
The agent argument has some merit on the side of "engagement", but like I said, there isn't just one way to engage and the "sympathetic" argument falls short when even C.S. Lewis, Rowling and many others with sympathetic characters and engaging stories got dozens or hundreds of rejections from dozens or hundreds of agents/publishers while stuff like Prince of Thorns and other works with similar vibes had bidding wars for them.

I'm not saying to ignore and dismiss their advice, as they do have experience and knowledge, but simply to also take with some (or a lot) grain of salt.
One moment teen girl in a dystopian setting sounds silly for almost all of them and next thing you know is how a teen girl should be done, the setting of the moment and the thing they're voraciously hunting after.
Many, if not most, of polemic, thought provoking or just different types of works wouldn't have seem the light of day.

I'm not saying that being sympathetic is the only way to do it!

Or that only good guys are sympathetic, or that only active characters are interesting, or that there's no room for new things or any of that. Pretty much every 'rule' I could give on how MCs are most commonly done has been broken at some point in storytelling to huge success.

But I can't think of many who have broken/bent all of them at the same time. And that's where Bradley's character is to me.

And in any case, I brought up agents as the most extreme and important case of a reader who has too much to do to put up with books that do not make them like the book very quickly.

Quote
*snip some good thoughts on Fitz*
The character did absolutely nothing yet I'm engaged.

So this an approach Bradley can take for his type of MC. If he isn't too active and sympathethic, we can still engage and feel for the character by what, how and why other characters do, feel and interact with th the MC.

In other words, if he can't save or kick the cat, turn him into the cat itself. Being the cat of the other characters, show me his beliefs, reactions and thoughts when he gets kicked or saved (saved meaning "doing something nice", as portrayed by the main definition, or everything other action in between) by the other characters. How he treats them, and so on.

There are probably many more approaches.

You're a bastard as I was arriving roughly at this point in the bath and you beat me to it! Can you get away with a MC who shows limited agency if there's another character on screen bursting with the stuff? I was thinking mainly mentors like Belgarath/Moraine but yeah, there's plenty of examples and Fitz is a good one. Maybe a better one.

Plus that gives the MC a strong emotional bond to another character, and how they react is still an example of agency.

Incidentally, you might have just hit why I couldn't finish The Farseer Trilogy despite considering Hobb an incredibly talented author. I've certainly always thought Fitz is too much of a punching bag to cope with. And I know there's plenty of others who dislike the books because of Fitz. It is really difficult to do. And, to go back to my point about breaking all the rules, Fitz is a nice guy.

Also I'm fairly sure he has his own StC moment with Molly. But yeah, Burrich's semi-adoption of him is the big moment of the early book.

Its a shame Bradley's MC doesn't have a mentor. Bradley, I've gotta ask, did you design this guy to deliberately break as many MC/FoD rules as possible? :P
 

That's a fair point and is indeed hard and will all come down to pure speculation as we don't have his story, his received feedback, his execution and his intentions.

Anyway, another point to consider is, if the problem is the start, how it begins. For me stories should begin with a change, whether it's a little before, a little after or right at the moment.

*snip bang on examples*

So maybe Bradley started a little too early in the timeline of his character or is taking too much time to get to at least at a hint of the promise of how a character will change. Because like Fitz, even without agency, things leading to some change need to happen even if the character doesn't have a lot of agency.

Again, hard to tell without actually seeing the story.

Yeah, that's a really good point. The story starts with the change and the whole "Arrive Late, Leave Early" thing is good advice here. If Bradley is starting too early that will leave the MC twisting in the wind.


In any case, yeah, I was thinking that I was being a bit unsupportive. And the truth is if someone says they're going to go climb Everest in their pyjamas by their self, the supportive thing (imo) is to say "No you're not." MCs who are neither Nice nor Active are like hens teeth. I genuinely can't think of one. No Super Cool Powers can't help either. I wanna be like "Just pick one to do without!". It'd certainly be easier. Still, that's Bradley's choice, and all I can do is offer advice and ideas.

One thing I do want to say about the whole Nice/Sympathetic thing... it's easier to feel sympathy/empathy/root for the nice characters, but its not exclusively theirs. I'm sure we can all think of anti-heroic characters we've really liked, rooted for and felt sympathy for. I've got a lot of sympathy for pretty much all the characters in Watchmen, and most of them are some form of jerk. I think Glokta might just be the greatest fantasy character of this century so far and have a lot of sympathy for him. And so on.

And you don't necessarily to find a character sympathetic to find them compelling.

Oddly enough, I'd say that the badder they are the easier it is. The ambition, the intensity of feeling... those things are admirable. Shocking acts are more "Woah!" and compelling. Its a lot more difficult to feel anything other than irritation for characters who are just a bit of a dick. Go big or go home.

However, there is a good example of a really popular MC who is a bit of a dick and that's Harry Flashman. There's nothing grand or anything to him other than a desire to have a nice life, no qualms how he gets it, and a belief that it's easier to fake it than make it. He's even not always that Active, in that left to himself he's doing sweet fanny adams (he's deffo more active than passive though). He is strangely sympathetic though, because he's surrounded by even worse people (and is often rather amusing in his internal observations of them).

Which in fact leads me to the thought that there is indeed a whole genre dedicated to this sort of petty asshole - Picaresque. If anyone wants to see how to make a fairly low grade character who's more on the unlikeable side than the likeable work, that's where I'd start looking.


As for the agency thing... well, Lanko already got my big idea. If Bradley wants to continue not having a mentor, then maybe he could show someone hunting the roguish criminal and using his agency to force the MC into doing things. You can even twist the whole FoD by having the forces of good hunt down this unwitting dark messiah, only to discover that the goodie two shoes are lying repressive bastards and actually, the MC is the good guy.

Another option might be giving the MC a subplot which does get him moving and showing agency while being completely passive in the face of fate/the main plot.

I do think the MC is well advised though to show at least some form of agency in terms of what he likes, what he wants to try and do, as quickly as possible. If nothing else, a character who doesn't have those small moments of agency simply doesn't feel human. Shadow's the only character I can think of who genuinely has that little agency and, in retrospect, there's a clue there...


One final thought.

If Bradley wants to deconstruct the FoD thing, I think playing around with the whole isolated community thing could be profitable. My initial thought was a character in a really well connected village, so he looks deeply rooted, but his internal thoughts and selfishness means he's actually quite internally isolated. Or maybe someone who grew up in a farming village on a major trade route, so he gets his "Info Dumps" for the travelling merchants and not the mentor. Or maybe they're from a travelling caravan and are isolated that way (Kvothe style).

Offline Lanko

  • Sherlanko Holmes, Jiin Wei and Writing Contest Regular
  • Writing Group
  • Khaleesi
  • *
  • Posts: 2582
  • Total likes: 1764
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Lanko's Goodreads
Re: Farmboy of Destiny
« Reply #24 on: August 24, 2017, 08:40:04 PM »
You're a bastard as I was arriving roughly at this point in the bath and you beat me to it! Can you get away with a MC who shows limited agency if there's another character on screen bursting with the stuff? I was thinking mainly mentors like Belgarath/Moraine but yeah, there's plenty of examples and Fitz is a good one. Maybe a better one.

Plus that gives the MC a strong emotional bond to another character, and how they react is still an example of agency.

Incidentally, you might have just hit why I couldn't finish The Farseer Trilogy despite considering Hobb an incredibly talented author. I've certainly always thought Fitz is too much of a punching bag to cope with. And I know there's plenty of others who dislike the books because of Fitz. It is really difficult to do. And, to go back to my point about breaking all the rules, Fitz is a nice guy.

Hah, I was also just typing this part. Burrich semi-adopts him, Patience later takes to herself to instruct Fitz in the things of the court, Galeno and Regal dislike him, and so on.
Even just being ordered around by everyone, you can engage with the character by how he reacts to them. He may Save the cat with Molly and later kicks it with Patience, who is pretty much raising the bastard of the man

More importantly, not only we have mixed feelings for him, but for the secondary characters as well. They become relevant, and maybe even though the MC is unsympathethic, lacks agency or etc, you can still feel something for the MC because of his relationship with a secondary and hope the MC does the right thing for them, which will elevate or not our opinion of him.
Happy or outraged, you're engaged, whether it is by his good deed or by a desire to see him pay later, or anything else and he didn't need to be extremely active to do this.

I do agree though, that in Fitz specific case indeed Hobb exaggerated in all the misery and in making Fitz such an incompetent punching bag. A little more balance would have been more satisfying.

But that's a problem I had with the execution, not on the chosen tactic.
Slow and steady wins the race.

Lanko's Year in Books 2017

Offline Bradley Darewood

  • Brandon Darewoodson
  • Writing Group
  • Kingkiller
  • ****
  • Posts: 1272
  • Total likes: 694
  • Gender: Male
  • Zork. And it was all downhill from there.
    • View Profile
    • Bradley Darewood on Tumblr!
Re: Farmboy of Destiny
« Reply #25 on: August 26, 2017, 12:42:16 PM »

1.So long as there's someone worse, he's not so bad.

2.  None of us have a birthright, either. Make birthrights a negative - something characters we hate have -and penalize him for it.

3. In other words, if you have your character do this stuff without the bennies of being the leader, he's super empathetic.

4. But as his initial scene illustrates, he is a skilled improviser with common sense. Coincidentally, this is some of the best character-arc stuff you can find.

5. If it's his world, so long as the readers love him, who cares?

6. Unsure what the agency discussion relates to, but it has the feel of breathing rarified air.

All really great points, TGC (except #6-- don't come down too hard on agency-- bottom line is that people feel more of the stakes/struggle if the protag demonstrates the possibility of impacting the central conflict).  I'm actually working on playing up #2 in the rewrite, I think I did okay with #5 and #4 and #1.  #2 is really what the story is about, at it's core: leaders don't become leaders by doing what's right-- it's about people doing what they think they should even tho they come from the bottom, and even tho it costs them

My three step guide to writing an interesting character would be thus:

a) Create an interesting character. Douchey semi-talented thief with no real goals doesn't cut it. Super spy who has failed in all he values and Adventure hungry but ordinary gentleman who has inherited the world's most dangerous treasure do. Wizard who's a PI and is mistrusted by the Wizard Council and is Marked by Supernatural Gribblies and has a Mental Family is arguably cooking with octarine... and arguably too much.

b) Attach them to the plot emotionally so everything is guided by their wants and reveals who they are

c) Write it like a damn ninja.

This post was brought to you by "Wishing I Was Drunk" industries.

hahaha, I hope "Wishing I Was Drunk" industries takes off.  Yeah this is the standard advice. It's good advice. That said, I think we've worked out some ways to diverge from this a bit in this thread and that really excites me!


If the book was called "The Orphan of Bucktower" probably many people would have bucked off from the book. But "Assassin's Apprentice" totally tells me this current meek and shy boy will eventually start killing people. So I can go through the lack of agency because of that promise, and even endure it for a hundred pages or even more. Because I want to see how this will happen. Who he'll kill and why. What he will pass through.

Will he be ordered to kill the guy who gave him a puppy dog? Will he have revenge on the guy who mistreated him? Will he work for that guy? Will that guy order him to kill the guy who gave him the dog? And so on.

The character did absolutely nothing yet I'm engaged.

So this an approach Bradley can take for his type of MC. If he isn't too active and sympathethic, we can still engage and feel for the character by what, how and why other characters do, feel and interact with th the MC.

In other words, if he can't save or kick the cat, turn him into the cat itself. Being the cat of the other characters, show me his beliefs, reactions and thoughts when he gets kicked or saved (saved meaning "doing something nice", as portrayed by the main definition, or everything other action in between) by the other characters. How he treats them, and so on.

There are probably many more approaches.
 
Given that a publisher told him they didn't like his MC, maybe it isn't fine. It could be entirely execution based but there's a real strong possibility at least some of it is down to the concept.

That's a fair point and is indeed hard and will all come down to pure speculation as we don't have his story, his received feedback, his execution and his intentions.

Anyway, another point to consider is, if the problem is the start, how it begins. For me stories should begin with a change, whether it's a little before, a little after or right at the moment.

For example, Fitz's story begins when he is pulled away from his mother, carried all the way to the castle town and thrown there. That's a really big change. Harry with the letters and the unusual behavior of his adoptive parents.
Even in GoT the mundane lives of the characters begin in relation to two changes going on, one unknown and the other known to the characters: The Walkers beyond the Wall, as seen in the prologue and the coming of Robert to Winterfell to make Ned his Hand.

Others like Prince of Thorns already start with the character changed and mostly set in his ways and what is left for us is to understand how he changed to that (and what he's gonna do next as slowly discover it).

So maybe Bradley started a little too early in the timeline of his character or is taking too much time to get to at least at a hint of the promise of how a character will change. Because like Fitz, even without agency, things leading to some change need to happen even if the character doesn't have a lot of agency.

Again, hard to tell without actually seeing the story.

Its a shame Bradley's MC doesn't have a mentor. Bradley, I've gotta ask, did you design this guy to deliberately break as many MC/FoD rules as possible? :P
 

That's a fair point and is indeed hard and will all come down to pure speculation as we don't have his story, his received feedback, his execution and his intentions.

Anyway, another point to consider is, if the problem is the start, how it begins. For me stories should begin with a change, whether it's a little before, a little after or right at the moment.

*snip bang on examples*

So maybe Bradley started a little too early in the timeline of his character or is taking too much time to get to at least at a hint of the promise of how a character will change. Because like Fitz, even without agency, things leading to some change need to happen even if the character doesn't have a lot of agency.

Again, hard to tell without actually seeing the story.

Yeah, that's a really good point. The story starts with the change and the whole "Arrive Late, Leave Early" thing is good advice here. If Bradley is starting too early that will leave the MC twisting in the wind.


In any case, yeah, I was thinking that I was being a bit unsupportive. And the truth is if someone says they're going to go climb Everest in their pyjamas by their self, the supportive thing (imo) is to say "No you're not." MCs who are neither Nice nor Active are like hens teeth. I genuinely can't think of one. No Super Cool Powers can't help either. I wanna be like "Just pick one to do without!". It'd certainly be easier. Still, that's Bradley's choice, and all I can do is offer advice and ideas.

One thing I do want to say about the whole Nice/Sympathetic thing... it's easier to feel sympathy/empathy/root for the nice characters, but its not exclusively theirs. I'm sure we can all think of anti-heroic characters we've really liked, rooted for and felt sympathy for. I've got a lot of sympathy for pretty much all the characters in Watchmen, and most of them are some form of jerk. I think Glokta might just be the greatest fantasy character of this century so far and have a lot of sympathy for him. And so on.

And you don't necessarily to find a character sympathetic to find them compelling.

Oddly enough, I'd say that the badder they are the easier it is. The ambition, the intensity of feeling... those things are admirable. Shocking acts are more "Woah!" and compelling. Its a lot more difficult to feel anything other than irritation for characters who are just a bit of a dick. Go big or go home.

However, there is a good example of a really popular MC who is a bit of a dick and that's Harry Flashman. There's nothing grand or anything to him other than a desire to have a nice life, no qualms how he gets it, and a belief that it's easier to fake it than make it. He's even not always that Active, in that left to himself he's doing sweet fanny adams (he's deffo more active than passive though). He is strangely sympathetic though, because he's surrounded by even worse people (and is often rather amusing in his internal observations of them).

Which in fact leads me to the thought that there is indeed a whole genre dedicated to this sort of petty asshole - Picaresque. If anyone wants to see how to make a fairly low grade character who's more on the unlikeable side than the likeable work, that's where I'd start looking.


As for the agency thing... well, Lanko already got my big idea. If Bradley wants to continue not having a mentor, then maybe he could show someone hunting the roguish criminal and using his agency to force the MC into doing things. You can even twist the whole FoD by having the forces of good hunt down this unwitting dark messiah, only to discover that the goodie two shoes are lying repressive bastards and actually, the MC is the good guy.

Another option might be giving the MC a subplot which does get him moving and showing agency while being completely passive in the face of fate/the main plot.


@Peat and @Lanko a ton of great advice here!!!  There's too much to quote!!!!

So here's what I'm really getting out of this thread :)

1) I think whether it's Rand, Harry or Fitz, there's something more the MC is going to do hinted at the beginning, even the title (Assassin's Apprentice).  I haven't figured out how to drop that hint in the beginning, i've been agonizing over it for forever. I really need to figure out how to do this kind of thing in way that's subtle enough not to be cheap, but not so subtle the readers will miss it. The beginning is exactly the problem.  I think the ending is strong.

2) Starting: Initially, I started out media res, but I'm actually thinking of going back *farther* so I can play up the have/have not tension and show some of that grueling inequality and daily grind that I implied but never *showed*, since it's central to the character and the decisions he makes later. I'm thinking of doing this, in part, on @Henry Dale 's advice

Given that a publisher told him they didn't like his MC, maybe it isn't fine. It could be entirely execution based but there's a real strong possibility at least some of it is down to the concept.

That's a fair point and is indeed hard and will all come down to pure speculation as we don't have his story, his received feedback, his execution and his intentions.

3) I really hate stories where the protagonist wins b/c they're the protagonist (biopics always make me want to vomit). It's so transparently fake and I see that trend as tied to our protag-worship, celebrity idolatry, and our inability as a people to feel empathy for more than one side, attribute agency only to the important people and treat everyone else like furniture. I want readers to question their presuppositions, question what a hero is, what leadership is, question the moralism they throw into the traditional hero narrative. Originally I wanted an ensemble cast where side characters could become main characters, main characters could fail and anything could happen.  Then, based upon the "books must have a protagonist that wants something" evil formula I went back and wrote Lade as my MC b/c... well... he survives to the end which I can't say for most of the other characters.  Was it a mistake to give in, be a conformist, and do that? Possibly.  Anyway I made an MC that wasn't a hero, learning that heroes themselves are manufactured and the desire to be the protagonist of some story (there are references to ballads quite frequently in the book it's very meta) is really not about doing what's right, it's about playing a role in a story manufactured by the powerful to serve *their* interests, thus maintaining the power structures the way they are.  I don't give any easy answers for those that rebel either, but that's to be explored in subsequent books.  This is all subtext that most readers probably will miss, but it's the most important part of the book for me.  The problem is that people looking for this sort of thing won't make it through the beginning to get to later parts of the book where the tropes get twisted.

Its a shame Bradley's MC doesn't have a mentor. Bradley, I've gotta ask, did you design this guy to deliberately break as many MC/FoD rules as possible? :P

4) So I got into this a bit above. I probably overstated my MC's doucheyness. He's an alright guy, just sort of self absorbed. But the fact is he survives to the end b/c he is a survivor. The "heroes" don't exactly.  The book is largely about how heroes fail, and are fake anyway. I actually do some of the things you guys mentioned.  There *are* mentors in the book.  The first part of the book the hero figure is a knight-prince (everything the MC, by birthright can't be) who is simultaneously a arrogant and mean to the MC, but also very selfless and heroic.  Being heroic makes him stupid. They spend half the book "saving" a princess who didn't want to be saved and actually unwittingly *unsaving* her, the hero-figure, constantly bravely putting himself in danger to save others, ultimately gets himself killed (as most protags really would just get their dumb asses killed irl imho).  After the first hero-figure dies, the second mentor takes a larger role.  She's sort of like La Femme Nikita (like from the 90s TV show, or maybe the OG film, not the new version), a con artist trying to save the world, at least in her own mind.  You're never really sure (and I don't get to *her* downfall in this book, that's for later in the series. Her failure is a lot more brutal and takes a much longer build up). In both cases my MC has a very antagonistic relationship with his mentors (the knight *hates* him, but they eventually bond, he's actually pitted directly against the second mentor in the final passes of the book, but comes to admire and respect her.  Joining her and betraying the king, thus changing him from a celebrated hero to a reviled exile is the big decision that ends the book).

Harper Collins actually loved the two mentor figures, and the other supporting characters.  They just didn't like my MC.  So that's what I've been trying to fix.  I think the core of the problem is at the start of the novel.  How do I seed that sense of anticipation (a la Assassin's Apprentice) while maintaining the unpredictability, the subversion of reader expectations that makes the ending worth getting to.... (like how do you do Assassin's Apprentice if you want the reader to become surprised that he becomes an assassin-- my climax hinges on you wondering what side the MC is going to choose at the end, I can't give it away in the beginning. That the princess doesn't want to be saved is a big surprise after a ton of build up to her rescue etc etc.)
« Last Edit: August 26, 2017, 12:59:57 PM by Bradley Darewood »

Offline Peat

Re: Farmboy of Destiny
« Reply #26 on: August 27, 2017, 12:28:11 AM »
I really hate stories where the protagonist wins b/c they're the protagonist (biopics always make me want to vomit). It's so transparently fake and I see that trend as tied to our protag-worship, celebrity idolatry, and our inability as a people to feel empathy for more than one side, attribute agency only to the important people and treat everyone else like furniture. I want readers to question their presuppositions, question what a hero is, what leadership is, question the moralism they throw into the traditional hero narrative. Originally I wanted an ensemble cast where side characters could become main characters, main characters could fail and anything could happen.  Then, based upon the "books must have a protagonist that wants something" evil formula I went back and wrote Lade as my MC b/c... well... he survives to the end which I can't say for most of the other characters.  Was it a mistake to give in, be a conformist, and do that? Possibly.  Anyway I made an MC that wasn't a hero, learning that heroes themselves are manufactured and the desire to be the protagonist of some story (there are references to ballads quite frequently in the book it's very meta) is really not about doing what's right, it's about playing a role in a story manufactured by the powerful to serve *their* interests, thus maintaining the power structures the way they are.  I don't give any easy answers for those that rebel either, but that's to be explored in subsequent books.  This is all subtext that most readers probably will miss, but it's the most important part of the book for me.  The problem is that people looking for this sort of thing won't make it through the beginning to get to later parts of the book where the tropes get twisted.

I am possibly the wrong person to give advice here as I find the idea of heroism fascinating and believe that in the struggle to show empathy for more than one side we are sliding to a place where we less explore the "bad guy" and glamourise the unambiguously bad. I feel like there's 10 books out there wanting to "Challenge my understanding" for every 1 that simply wants to show some heroes. I'm up for both really, preferably the same time, but there's a glut and I feel a lot of the peeps out there with hot new takes are in fact offering me stuff that's colder than gazpacho soup.

But often starting at the opposite end of the road still means exploring the same places. And as such - what you have sounds pretty cool. It sounds like the sort of thing David Gemmell would do, except he'd definitely make the MC a guy with the potential for straight up "I'll do the right thing regardless of personal cost and I'll do it well" style heroism. It echoes some of the cynicism shown by Bernard Cornwell in his Dark Ages series. Its in pieces of Pratchett and a whole bunch of other stuff...

And as such, I don't think the issue is the set up, its simply the character. And while Yora has a point that not all successful stories depend on deep characters (paging Tom Clancy and EL James...), they're not going into certain areas of human psychology and I think that does also require characters as a main selling point.

Also, their characters are easily identifiable stereotypes. And your guy isn't.

Just make him someone people want to read about. Please. Right now, I'm not even sure you want to read about him. I feel like you've spent a gazillion words on every other aspect of your story on this thread, including why you're not making him interesting. Honestly? You don't need to make him heroic, or protagonistic, or whatever, just... readable. If you're gonna run this sort of story, I don't think you can afford any characters that aren't readable.

And if you fiddle around with the set-up without fiddling around with the character... well, maybe it works, but you are going all eleven sides of a dodecahedron to make it work.

p.s. Isn't your original ensemble idea basically what GRR Martin did?
« Last Edit: September 05, 2017, 05:42:52 PM by Peat »
This is the blog of Peat - http://peatlong.blogspot.co.uk/

Offline cupiscent

Re: Farmboy of Destiny
« Reply #27 on: September 05, 2017, 04:42:00 AM »
I've just finished a fabulous seminar session with CS Pacat (Part 5 of a 6-month online session) where she talked about plotting using a new approach/language that gave me several "ah-hah!" moments; I feel like it's applicable to about six different conversations I've had with people here, but this is one of them.

She started by scrubbing out the question of "tension", and replacing it with the concept of "traction" - the point, she highlighted, is to keep the reader engaged and turning pages, not necessarily to keep things tense. Tension is one kind of traction, but you can also keep traction with mystery, or exploration, or revelation, or even delight. The important thing is to keep the reader convinced that what's going to happen is going to be great to read, and/or something that they really want to see happen.

And basically how you do this is you make promises. You promise that a gap in knowledge will be filled, or that a romance is going to develop between two characters, or that a Big Thing is going to happen. Then you delay gratification on that promise, until you finally pay it off, and then immediately raise a new question / make a new promise. (So, one of her key examples was the Hunger Games. The opening references "The Reaping", which is happening today, but doesn't tell you what it, or the Hunger Games, is, until the Reaping is actually happening. At which point immediately a new question arises: so who's going to be chosen?)

Promises - and thereby traction - also nest. You have your big overarching traction arc, which is the main plotline - will Katniss survive/win the Hunger Games? - but within that there are lots of smaller promise/delivery traction arcs. Similarly, Game of Thrones raises it's big arc in the prologue - winter and the White Walkers are coming, will humanity survive? - but also makes sure every single POV character has ongoing traction arcs, so you're always interested. (I think part of where the traction of the later books breaks down for me is when I could no longer remember what the arcs were for all the characters, so a POV shift meant a fall into a traction deadzone because I couldn't remember why I wanted to read about this character anymore. Lack of interrelation between the characters and plots didn't help this.)

The key steps are: 1) Raise the question or make the promise; 2) Establish why it matters; 3) Let the question loom (this is important, fast delivery is good for pizza, bad for plot, but on the other hand, don't stretch a question further than it can comfortably go); 4) Deliver the answer or event, and then immediately; 5) Have a new question or promise arise from the delivery.

This is, in essence, just a different phrasing of something I've said before here: always give the reader a reason to keep reading. But Cat's different way of looking at it really helped me make some breakthroughs in thinking about plotting my own writing, so I thought I would share!

Offline Jmack

  • Hircum Magna Rex of the Fabled Atku Temple, and writing context regular
  • Writing Group
  • Ringbearer
  • *****
  • Posts: 6071
  • Total likes: 3999
  • Gender: Male
  • ridiculously obscure is my super power.
    • View Profile
Re: Farmboy of Destiny
« Reply #28 on: September 05, 2017, 10:50:27 AM »
Which makes me want onapply this immediately to my monthly story! Thanks for sharing, C.
Change, when it comes, will step lightly before it kicks like thunder. (GRMatthews)
You are being naive if you think that any sweet and light theme cannot be strangled and force fed it's own flesh. (Nora)

Offline Jmack

  • Hircum Magna Rex of the Fabled Atku Temple, and writing context regular
  • Writing Group
  • Ringbearer
  • *****
  • Posts: 6071
  • Total likes: 3999
  • Gender: Male
  • ridiculously obscure is my super power.
    • View Profile
Re: Farmboy of Destiny
« Reply #29 on: September 05, 2017, 10:55:07 AM »
Double post.
Having been away, I'd not known about this thread.

This is a CRAZY long thread.
How many words of discussion are in this thing?!
Change, when it comes, will step lightly before it kicks like thunder. (GRMatthews)
You are being naive if you think that any sweet and light theme cannot be strangled and force fed it's own flesh. (Nora)