The kid character (Just to start small)

Let's talk today about 'that kid character'. Now depending on what you are writing, this could mean different things. If you're writing fiction for children then your kid character is most likely the main character. But in this case I'm referring more to Young Adult and Adult books. This is the adorable character who often draws affection from most of the good guys. They are innocent, eager, and totally unaware of the harsh reality of life. So let's dive in and see the stereotype and the three dimensional character.

The stereotype: The child is a generic, cute younger sibling, friend or child of the main character, made either for the purpose of showing a harsher characters soft side or giving you a taste of the main characters normal life. Later on in the story they will likely be put in some kind of horrible danger (Kidnapped or something of that sort) and the main character will have to save them. We want to see them succeed because we don't want to see a kid get hurt or killed.

The problem with this kind of character, however, is that they're not really a character. They're more a tool to pull out feelings from the main character or motivate them to do something. Outside of a bubbly, innocent exterior, they are a plot device. And you never want your character to just be a plot device.

The 3D character: A kid becomes a character when they start making contributions on a deeper level. Maybe they help the main character out, maybe they make an emotional contribution outside of just making the readers go "aw!" Maybe they actually have some insight into a situation that adults couldn't see. The kid should have an arc like anyone else. It also helps if you don't just put them in there to be kidnapped.

A good example of a stereotype turned 3D in books is Prim Everdeen from the Hunger Games. She did basically start out as an innocent, adorable motivator to get Katniss into the Hunger Games. But later on in the books she contributes more. We get to see her connect more with her sister. She's a good nurse and she really wants to help people. Plus she's a little older than a typical younger sibling which allowed for a little more depth.

In anime, a character named Edward is a good example of a 3D kid character. She is from Cowboy Bebop (Yes I said she.) and she is bat s*** crazy insane. However, she's a genius, and can hack practically anything which helps the rest of the adult crew when they're trying to catch bounty heads. She is never kidnapped and she rarely is any danger at all. But she's still very helpful and her character doesn't need that 'Oh no! She's in danger!' aspect to make her awesome. Edward is still one of my favorite characters of all time.

In my book I have a character a little similar to Edward, except for she is more of a twelve year old stuck with a six year old mind. She isn't a hacker, but she can shape shift into a cat, which gives her the opportunity to spy on the villains. She contributes and she rarely gets into fights with them. I actually play with the idea of kids just being innocent because that's what a lot of the other characters think about her to. When things start getting darker, they want her to stay out of it, so she decides to prove she is useful to them. Even though she's young, she's not stupid.

And that's the key. Children aren't just innocent, adorable balls of fun. They are very smart and perceptive and they understand more than some people think. They can be a great tool so use them to your advantage!

-Authoress Anonymous

My favorite characters (And how they're predictable)

I'm a predictable person when it comes to what I like. If you know me you can pretty much pick up any book at all and pick out my favorite character. If it's the right type of book. Generally it has to be fantasy, dystopian or adventure based in some way. Not realistic fiction. That's a bit more complex. But with those other genres it's pretty easy.

Basically most of my favorite characters are complex, sarcastic, middle aged men. Which is weird. Because I'm not at middle age yet so you'd think I'd still like the younger love interest.

I do not.

Not that I don't like those characters. I do. I just don't ever find myself as interested in them. Maybe it's because I'm a writer and I'm drawn to a more mysterious character I don't know as much about. If I don't know as much about them then I can fill in the gaps for myself and have a ton of fun thinking what might be their back story before the author themselves reveal it. Maybe it's because I have a very dry wit and you usually don't find that kind of humor in younger characters. Maybe I just like characters with a dark streak or a dark brooding past. Younger characters haven't had much time to have a dark brooding past. They're not even two decades old.

So let's dive into my psyche shall we, and find out why I like the characters I do.

1. I like bad guys

I'm not going to deny it. I have a soft spot for villains. In almost every book, move or anime I have a villain that I just enjoy the hell out of every time they make an appearance. 

I blame this on events deeply rooted in my childhood (Though that makes it sound really dramatic doesn't it?). My main playmate when I was a kid (Four or five) was my brother. My brother was the type of person who loved to stage epic battles between his action figures. Battles between good and evil that involved death and triumph. It's a lot for a five year old to absorb. Especially when said five year old's brother tried to make the battles complex. Like the bad guys sometimes won. Or if the bad guy didn't win and died, he had a son that he left behind. Or he had a tortured past. Or he and the main good guy used to be best friends.

Yep. Guess that explains my dark side. My brother instilled it in me at a young and impressible age.

But I'd like to clarify that my favorite character isn't usually the main bad guy. Like Voldemort wasn't my favorite character in Harry Potter. Sauron wasn't my favorite character in Lord of the Rings. And Lord Citius wasn't my favorite character in Star Wars. I like the side villains because they're generally less evil and more complex. And I can hypothesize a lot more about their fall from grace.

Really villains are just some of the most interesting characters because we want to know, as readers, where they went wrong. How did they fall so far and reach this point? What terrible things brought them to this state? Is there any humanity left in them? Is their hope for redemption?

With the main character and love interest, we nearly always know the good guy is going to make the right decision in the end, even if there are challenges and they are tempted by the bad side. Unless the book or movie is some character study about a fall from grace. Or a Shakespeare play. In YA in particular, the main good guys usually overcome the challenges. It's the side villains who are less predictable. We want to see if maybe there is more to them or if they'll do something good in the end.

And even if they don't we can always write alternate endings.

2. If they aren't a straight villain: They're still screwed up.

Even if my favorite character is on the "Good side", they still are very messed up. They still have done something bad in the past or make a huge mistake over the course of the book, they've had something horrible happen to them and they're jaded because of it, or it's just hard to get a read on them.

Or in my ideal character: All four.

Let's take a look at some of my favorite characters shall we?

Snape (Harry Potter): He's done something bad in the past, he's had horrible things happen to him, he's jaded, he's hard to get a read on and he switches sides about fifty thousand times (Or not really. We just think he does. I LOVE SNAPE!)

Darth Vadar (Like I need to tell you): He's screwed up, has made mistakes but was ultimately redeemed. My favorite kind of villain!

Basta (Inkheart): He's a villain, it is implied that he has had terrible things happen to him and he's not a nice guy over the course of the book. We also never find out in detail what happened to him so gues who's imagination got to go wild!

Joe Solomon (Gallagher Girl's series): He worked for an evil organization in the past, he's made mistakes, it's hard to get a read on him, and he's bad ass (Like James Bond if he wasn't a sexist pig and was actually an interesting character)

Boromir (Lord of the Rings): He was tempted by the ring and almost killed Frodo to get it. That's a pretty big mistake. (Also my second favorite character is Golum so... yeah, do I even need to list what's wrong with him?)

Haymitch (The Hunger Games): Horrible things have happened to him, he's made mistakes, he's jaded and he's a sarcastic drunk as an extra plus!

Spotting the trend now? I could list a lot of others and honestly the only reason that a sarcastic, mysterious, middle aged man with a bad streak isn't my favorite character in every single book I read is because sometimes there isn't one of those in the book.

Funny enough, they aren't my favorite characters because I'm attracted to them or anything like that. I would not want to date these guys. They would be trouble. I do feel like this kind of character is often liked by women who really want a project. Someone to fix. That's fine for them but I'm just that nerdy writer who likes characters because they're good characters.

It's a concept that a lot of people fail to understand when I say: My favorite character is Haymitch. They reply "You like him? Peeta is the hottest."

Since when did your favorite character have to be the one you're attracted to? Thank God I didn't say Effie.

-Authoress Anonymous

The tough girl stereotype (And why it's very hit and miss)

So we've talked about Disney Princesses and mothers and villainesses. All have their fair share of stereotypes and things that bother me.

But surprisingly, one of the stereotypes that bugs me the most is the one that goes on the opposite end of the spectrum from the damsel in distress. And that is the tough girl.

Now don't take that the wrong way. I like strong female characters a lot. I'm all for women who can defend themselves and fight with the guys. I love Mulan, I love Katniss, and I love Eowyn who I mentioned in my first post on this topic. But there's something that they do right that others don't do right.

I'm going to break down my pet peeves about the tough girl into a few groups:

1. Nonsensical emotional range:

You know how there's always that tough woman in fantasy or Urban fantasy who takes out ten guys all by herself then says a witty one liner... after killing ten people? That's always bothered me, with men and women heroes. I'm someone who generally likes the loss of life to have weight. When someone dies, I don't like it when it's brushed off especially not with humor. Now in war movies I understand they can't linger on the deaths because it's war and death happens all the time. But they certainly don't make one liners.

With characters who are bad ass killing machines with no problems cutting people down, it usually makes more sense for them to be... non emotional. Because if you have a sense of humor after years of killing people (At least the witty, sarcastic "look at me being witty" sense) you must be pretty sadistic. And I don't want to see that in a main character unless it's supposed to be there. This is prevalent in male characters (James Bond anyone) but especially in tough female characters these days. Writers want their character to be cool and collected and badass but also be funny. And that just. doesn't. work with me. It's not realistic, and it's almost sadistic if you think about it.

It's like in the last Harry Potter movie where Neville blew up a bridge and sent hundreds of wizards falling and screaming to their gruesome deaths. He climbs up onto a bridge and says "That went well."

Except with a girl instead.

An example of a character who handles the gruesome nature of death with a realistic attitude is Katniss from the Hunger Games. She was prepared to kill for survival but she was still disgusted when she did it. She didn't ever laugh or crack a witty one liner with Rue after they blew up the supplies. When she did make a witty retort it was because she knew the audience was watching and she needed to give them a show, which goes to show what people like to watch. That was very well done. It made sense.

Other characters, not so much.

2. Physical downsides of being a woman

I know women like to say: We can be just as strong as the guys. And we can... but not in the same ways. Biologically it isn't possible for us to build as much muscle mass. The average size of women is also considerably less than the size of men. Because of this downside, a punch from a woman may not make as great of an impact as a punch from a man.

Now obviously some women can be stronger than some men because there are wimpy guys or just guys who aren't particularly strong. But think about women in fantasy and urban fantasy: They're usually attractive. That means skinny. That means not as much muscle mass. And if I read about said skinny girl taking down four men twice her size, I'm often tempted to call BS, especially if it's won on strength alone like a fist fight. If the woman has skill with a gun or knife, I'll buy that, because skill with weapons doesn't necessarily mean strength.

This can be done right too. I actually like it when books acknowledge the physical weaknesses of their main heroine. An example of who does this well is Mulan. This movie is constantly making fun of the difference between men and women and pointing out Mulan's disadvantages. She beats the bad guys by using her brain. She shot a cannon at a mountain, caused an avalanche, and destroyed most of the hun army. That's awesome.

Her final fight with the main villain is also awesome, even though I do call BS on her being able to knock his feet out from under him. I mean, his leg is about as thick as her whole body. But she is smart and doesn't try to confront him just with a sword... because she would probably lose. Because Shan Yu is three times her size and is a warrior who has practiced with the sword a lot more than her.

Another character who does this well is Arya from Game of Thrones (I've only seen the TV show so I'm going off of that). This is a tough female character but she's a kid, and a very small kid. But she is taught to use her sword in a way that suits her size, by reverting others force against them and by being quicker than her opponent. She loses fights but that doesn't make her unlikable. That makes her realistic and a better character.

3. Dislikeability

A woman who is too tough and too strong and played up to have little to know flaws... can often come across as an unlikeable character. That's the worst thing. When an author expects people to get behind this character who often has the previous flaws I've talked about, even though the character is actually selfish, cold and just has no redeeming values.

I hate to bring this up, because I know a lot of people like this book, but Tris, from Divergent, pisses me off so much. I've heard she's popular, I know this book is popular but I just can't stand her. I find her selfish, cold and very unrealistic. She actually fails at all three of the things I've mentioned. Someone who becomes more of a robot than an actual character I want to relate to. Her mother and father and many of her friends are killed in the same day and yet she doesn't bat an eyelash. 

I know I said that if a tough girl is to be done right, maybe they have to be colder. But Tris didn't start out that way. She just morphed from a pretty normal teenage girl to this harsh, unlikeable, "brave" person and it was supposed to be OK. If this was on purpose it would have been fine but we're supposed to like this character. And I just can't get over how mean spirited she is. It's not like with Katniss where she's not only trying to play to the crowd but she also does recognize her flaws and tries not to lose herself. Tris is also trying to play to her new sector and get recognition but she does lose herself along the way. The book just doesn't realize it. Which is really sad.

I'll talk more about this in my eventual review of Divergent and leave it at that for now. Maybe it's just a personal thing but Tris really rubbed me the wrong way.

So that's all for the tough girl. I may do something else on this in the future but until then we'll leave it at this.

And yes... tomorrow is the inevitable Bella Swan rant.

Be afraid.

-Authoress Anonymous

Side Dishes and Spices (How I like my romance served)

I've stated before that I have nothing against romance in YA. I find it a nice touch if done well. I usually don't go to a book advertised as contemporary romance of course because fantasy and sci-fi are more my cup of tea.

Here's my take on it. If you say your book is fantasy, fantasy should be the main feature. Not that hot boy who's not human. The hot boy who isn't human should be a side plot. Same with dystopian.

Going back to the Hunger Games, Suzanne Collins did a wonderful job of blending romance with life threatening situations. Because let's face it: When you're thrown into an arena to fight to the death, hot baker boys are REALLY low on your priorities list. As they should be. A revolution to change the world as we know it takes top billing to romance. Because if my life was on the line or everyone was looking to me to lead them, I would not be thinking about boys.

To me, romance in books like these (Books with some sort of higher calling or goal. Life threatening stuff and all that jazz) are like spices. Put on just the right amount and it will taste great but overload them and the spices blot out the taste of the food. They could even make you reach for a gallon of water.

In my own novel (Which is urban fantasy) I do have romance. It just doesn't amount to much until late in the series. No one kisses until book four (the last book). When my main character meets the boy who will eventually be her love interest, she does acknowledge the fact that he is attractive but cocky but she doesn't linger on it too long because HELLO! She's in the middle of an escape attempt and good looking guys are low on the priorities list. A few more references are made but it's more of a typical teenage crush. There's not much time for romance to build.

Same thing in book 2. There are hints of that relationship and I start also building another possible relationship between two other characters. Book 3 the relationships grow more and by book 4, yes some of the romantic tension is finally unleashed. But the romantic plot is smaller. That's the way I like it.

It's all opinion of course. Tell me how you prefer your romance in books! I'm curious.

-Authoress Anonymous