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

Divergent Book Review (This gonna be a long one)

Well this is going to run a little long. Usually my book reviews do get rather specific because I like to analyze what makes books good or bad. In this case... it's bad. The book is a popular Dystopian I'm sure you've heard of: Divergent.

Now first off, when I make these reviews this is all personal opinion. This is nothing against the author who wrote the piece or the people who do enjoy the book because everything gets a something different out of a novel. For me, I didn't get much, but that shouldn't stop any of you for liking the book.

First we'll start out with the spoiler free section of the review for those who haven't read it.

The book is set in a dystopian society where every child at the age of sixteen must choose which "faction" they will belong to for the rest of their lives. These factions are all centered around a seperate virtue: Dauntless, Erudite, Candor, Abnegation, and Amity. The book follows Tris, a girl from Abnegation who shows aptitude for more than one virtue and is named "Divergent". She defects to the Dauntless near the start of the book.

The writing style: I really have no qualms with this part of the book. In fact if there's one thing Veronica Roth has mastered, it's creating a page turner. Sentences are often and short and sweet and move the book along very quickly. She doesn't linger on anything or analyze anything to much and leaves much of the interpretation to the reader. Only problem is, the more interpretation allowed, the more misinterpretation and I think some things in this book rubbed off on me the wrong way.

The characters: Here's where I first started to struggle in this book. The characters. For the most part I either out right hated them or just found them bland and forgettable. Characters are the most important thing to me in books. I can forgive any sloppy plot if I'm in love with the characters. Unfortunately this book didn't do it for me.

So let's break it down and start with our main heroin: Tris.

I like to analyze characters through their authors as I said. And what do you know? Tris happens to be one of Ms. Roth's two favorite characters. Veronica Roth said that "she liked Tris because of how strong she was but also because she could show vulnerability and acknowledge she needs other people to help her."

Ooh boy, did I not get that out of Tris.

This is actually the only character I felt strong emotion towards and unfortunately it was of the negative type. She just made no sense to me. At her core she seemed like a very selfish, cold, violent person but got the feeling she wasn't supposed to be that way. In the beginning of the book she was fine and seemed a bit out of place in the Dauntless society. Which made sense because she was described as smaller and clumsy. But as she got more and more integrated into society and her peers started to accept and love her more and more, I started to dislike her, which I don't think should have been my response. She just seemed to lose who she was to the point that I had no idea who she was.

Let me explain, the only time where I actually believed the character is when she was in her violent or cold state, which as made obvious by my post on the tough girl stereotype, I don't like unless it is explained or makes sense. She does some violent things and really doesn't feel any guilt for it. Occasionally she questions her actions but this is brushed over very quickly I almost feel like it's a lazy attempt to make Tris seem in the right.

The same thing happens with emotions. Occasionally Tris will "almost cry" or "feel guilty" but these moments seem so sporadic and quick I don't understand her motivation for feeling them. I'm not sure what makes her sad or what makes her angry. I just have to take the books word for it and I don't believe what the book is telling me. She also had an unrealistic progression of athletic ability when she suddenly, despite the fact that she was clumsy a few chapters ago, wins a fight based soely on her quick moves and stellar reflexes... against an opponent twice her size. I call major BS on that.

In my opinion Tris was a very selfish main character and I'll get to what irritates me most about her in the spoilers section.

But that's ok, because side characters can often make up for some of the damage the main character causes. I mean, even in Twilight where I hated Bella with a passion I still liked some of the minor characters like Alice.

Unfortunately so little time is spent with the side characters... I mean they're there but they don't really have a discernible personality throughout their conversations. I can some up their characters in about one word. The best friend was honest, the other friend was logical, the other friend was insecure, the bullies were... stereotypical bullies.

Which speaking of which: One of those bullies is named Peter. Peter was the second of the author's two favorite characters because as she described him "he's the kind of kid who tortured insects on the playground." and he is "morally bankrupt."

Why that sounds facinating! But is he sadistic or interesting? No. He's a typical bully. He's kind of like Draco Malfoy if he didn't get any character development. The character who actually did seem sadistic was Eric, one of the instructors for Dauntless. He was one of the few characters I was interested in. Him and Tris' mom, who discussed in an earlier post. I was honestly much more interested in the mom's story than Tris'.

Our final character is Four. The love interest. And I swear he was the only saving grace about this book... until the end. But I'll get to that in a minute. This was someone who's motivations I understood; someone who was cold because of the environment he was put in and he wasn't at all perfect... ok, he kind of was in the fact that he was the perfect dauntless student but he had attitude issues that made him seem like a normal person.

The one problem I had with him was he seemed older. Maybe it's because he was a teacher and I was picturing someone in their twenties. Maybe it was his calm demeanor (Which isn't typical of 18 year old boys) I don't know but because of that I found Tris' relationship with him a bit... creepy. I know his age but I couldn't get a picture of an adult out of my head.

Unfortunately he faltered as well, but I'll get to that in the spoilers section.

The world: This world, on the surface, seemed pretty cool. I did think the design of the dauntless initiation was well constructed and flawed as it should have been (Since true bravery doesn't seem to be highly valued any more). I thought it was cool it was set in Chicago and it seemed like an original premise.

Only problem is, I can't for the life of me decide what idiot politician thought this world was a good idea for creating a stable environment.

With most Dystopian societies, you see why they were constructed even if you don't agree with them. They are usually made because some great conflict in the past that made it clear that democracy could no longer reign. Therefore they create a stricter political system that will keep peace among the people.

But with this world you are dividing your people up into five factions that clearly don't agree with each other. You decided to keep peace by pointing out people's differences? WHY? To make matters worth some people don't even get a faction. The factionless are impoverished and without a home. Did the government think it was a good idea to isolate people and make them feel like they don't belong? How does that create peace?

And it's not just that they force people to choose a side, but having an aptitude in multiple areas (Divergent) is forbidden. Why? If you have aptitudes in multiple areas why aren't you celebrated. You have the ability to see multiple sides of an argument and could make a great leader among the people and hold them together. Is this government actually saying that you're a bad person if you're well rounded? No wonder s many of the side characters weren't interesting. They had a one dimensional personality based on one virtue!


Story: So one of the underlying conflicts of this story was tension between the factions I was thinking: "Whoopdee doo! What did you think was going to happen?!" Pointing out peoples differences never got them to cooperate!

Apparently the abnegation and erudite are in a tense situation because erudite claims that abnegation is abusing their power and hoarding stuff for themselves... why are they saying that? If abnegation values selflessness then why would they be doing something selfish? It's not like Erudite is saying the Dauntless are deserting the security forces or Amity is being mean or Candor is lying to increase their power. How does their accusation make sense and why does everyone seem to believe it?

And why wasn't this book about the Factionless and an uprising they make. Wouldn't that conflict make a lot more sense. I feel like we could learn a lot more from that story line. And Tris' arc doesn't really add to this whole conflict. It just makes it seem more implausible.

Spoilers: Alright, here's the part where those of you who want to read the book leave. Because I'm talking about the ending.

The problem with this book is that while it's fast paced and well written, you can see the twists coming from a mile away. There were no real surprises in this book. It's like I figured out a twist and was just waiting for it to get there. Then several chapters later it finally got there. The worst offender of this was Four, who's real name obviously isn't Four. As soon as they established that wasn't his real name I was like "Gee, I wonder if it's that one character they briefly mentioned at the beginning who defected to the Dauntless from Abnegation?" Conclusion: Yep.

There were three things in particular that annoyed me about the ending. First, how insensitive Tris was. I swear one of her friends and both of her parents were shot and she gave it so little thought. She felt more emotion to her love interest who she had barely known for a few months and not her MOTHER! That just pissed me off. I just felt like she brushed these deaths off like: Whatever. Sucks. And then just dropped it! It drove it home for me how much I disliked her character.

Second was Four. Because while the other side characters were quite obviously as boring as peaces of cardboard, Four was secretly a piece of cardboard with a veil in front of him that said "I"M MYSTERIOUS! I SWEAR!" The payoff for his character was disappointing.

Third: The message. Or lack there of, because I'm honestly not sure what I was supposed to learn from this. At the end of the day, hundreds are dead, the factions are in ruin, life is terrible but I'm not sure what came out of it? What was the message? That it's important to embrace more than one virtue? I think most people knew that. That similarities are more important than differences? Been done. That war is bad?

...I'm reaching here. I don't know. It really felt like the massive loss of life was all for nothing and sense the main character seemed to care so little about it, so did I.

Sorry this was a long one... consider it making up for the two weeks I'll be gone. Until then!

-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

YA Romance (What irks and surprises me about it)

First off, I'm not against romance in YA. I do think it's a relevant issue. Many teenagers are experiencing their first relationships in high school and reading romance gives them something to relate to. It's one of the most fascinating things in the world to many teenagers, especially girls, so it doesn't surprise me that a lot of books focus on it.

But that being said, I've always have had issues with this genre and how it speaks to teenage girls. So I'm going to outline a few of these in today's post.

1. He's hot... and that's about all I've got


A lot of YA romances that I've read are based solely on attraction. On the beauty of the man's eyes and hair and face and abs and sparkling skin. And that's fine as an initial spark. Teenagers are often first attracted by the appearance. Which is why a lot of nice guys get snubbed. But then these relationships based soely on attraction continue and the books tend to mistake them for true love. Case in point: Twilight.

I hate to reference Twilight. Everyone has. But it's just so hard not to, especially when talking about YA romance. So do forgive me for bringing it up here.

In Twilight, paragraphs (Long paragraphs) are used to describe Edward, the gorgeous and sparkly vampire, over and over again. But no amount of brilliant golden eyes or gorgeous pale skin can hide one obvious fact: He has the personality of this sentence.

2. Different does not make interesting: 
Sure Edward has cultured hobbies and is protective but that doesn't really make a personality. It makes him "different" but not interesting (Which was the same problem with Bella but that's a post for another time). He was, in fact, perfect. Which doesn't exist. It really doesn't.

Contrast our vampire with Jacob, the werewolf. This boy had tons of personality. He was supportive and kind and a good friend yet he still had flaws. He had anger issues, he got jealous, sometimes he was selfish. But that's teenage boys. And personality comes with flaws, not just the good things. It's a combination of strengths and weaknesses that make a character interesting and makes us want to root for them even when they make bad decisions. (And yet Jacob still gets the shaft. So obnoxious)

So you can't just add "different" qualities and expect them to translate into personality in your writing.

3. True love... in high school
Yeah, this one especially irks me. Because 99 times out of 100, you do not find your true love in high school. Sure you hear those stories about the childhood sweethearts who married and lived happily but those are few and far between, especially in today's society. (I knew a girl in high school who had thirteen boyfriends in one year. That shouldn't even be possible).

 Most girls and boys aren't mature enough to handle a serious relationship in high school. They still have a lot to learn and a lot of room to grow in who they are before they can actually commit themselves to another person. The reason you see a lot of couples get married in college or shortly after is that they have grown up and become comfortable with themselves as a person. That makes for a healthier relationship.

So romantic advice aside, it's obvious why it really irks me when Bella and Edward get married right out of high school because of "true love". Because you never made a stupid decision when you were that age did you? The reason this bothers me is this was a relationship based solely on attraction. I never really saw any chemistry between the two. It's not like they ever had moments where they were just having fun and laughing with each other, fixing a motorcycle instead of gazing into each others eyes (Like what her and Jacob did... I should probably stop talking about him)

Initial attraction does not equal true love, especially not in high school. I don't care if the guy is a vampire, it just doesn't happen.

So yeah, those are my three main problems with romance. But have I seen YA romances that do it right?


Yes.

Funny enough, they're usually dystopian too. Hunger Games I thought handled the romance well in the fact that the whole thing wasn't really love at first sight. Katniss was mostly playing it up for the camera to stay alive. That's awesome. Plus she still had a reason to like him outside of his looks. He kind of saved her life when she was starving. That gets him points. It's mostly his generosity and kindness that attracts her.

Second example is Matched. This is sort of a forbidden love type story since you're arranged to marry someone based on logic. However, big shock, the main character starts falling for another boy, even though the person she's matched with has been her best friend. And I can see why she falls for the other boy.

Initially it's not because of his looks, but just because he's mysterious. Which teenage girls definitely go for. But she starts falling for him because of his personality, which is also quite interesting. This is an example of a character with different hobbies, who actually is done right (Like Edward could have been). And I loved this character. I actually got into the romance in this book and I don't do that very often because romance isn't my genre.

So that's my post on YA romance today. Wow... long post. Thanks for reading if you're even still here!

-Authoress Anonymous