I'm Noticing a Trend, Here...

Post Reply New Topic

This is a pseudo-intellectual trick question, but I'll answer it anyway.

I define 'normal' in this case as a character with a definitive place in their own personal social circle and in society as a whole. A person who is more than capable (and usually in the process of) of contributing to society in some meaningful way; going to school, having a paying job in an industry or field of interest, spending time volunteering, etc. Someone who spends time with other people for the sake of companionship, and not just for what those people can do for them (sex, drugs, money, material goods and services, etc.) and who shows care for, and interest in, the people they spend that time with.

In short, 'normal' is:

- Showing a healthy interest in the world and people around you.
- Displaying at least moderate amounts of contextually-appropriate emotions.
- Being capable of contributing to society in some way (i.e. holding a job).

That's an extremely broad definition of 'normal', covering probably all but 0.001% of the human population or something, I'm guessing.

I personally feel with characters with bad backstories, it's better to do it in the way Cowboy Bebop did it. Not dwell on the fact, but reality is reality. No "woe is me" or any of that, but at the same time, they do real huge issues on their plate. So alluded to, but not overstated, in other words. I like it when characters try to make some semblance of getting on with life.

I think the main problem is teenage protagonists. I don't like too many animes with modern teenage protagonists, I find them totally unrelateable, and did as a teenager as well. 80s or so was really good for teenage protagonists, but now all the kids are just whiny emo kids in almost all animes. Patlabor was one of my favorite animes for a big reason, in that the youngest protagonists were my age now, like 20 or so, in a world of adults. When you make a character older, they necessarily become less emo.

I don't like equating "not normal" with being immoral or bad. What about "not normal" people who are more moral than average?

Being 'normal' is basically just being a tolerable human being. To what degree one can get away with being 'immoral' or 'bad' while still retaining the status of 'tolerable' is open to debate by the people the person interacts with and how the individual interacts with them.

And how is that necessarily a good thing?

twat.

How?

As opposed to your anti-intellectual, inverted snobbery?



So boring then?



How is going to school a contributing to society in some meaningful way? what do you mean by 'meaningful way' anyway? So someone who doesn't or can't contribute in the ways you describe is not normal?



So not very many people then?



Again not very many people then? and by your definition unemployed people are not normal.



No more like 90%

You obviously have something against those who do not conform to your view of normality and therefore don't like seeing them in peoples stories. No one is really 'normal' no matter how much you would like to think otherwise.

A lot of people are not tolerable human beings, so a lot of people are not normal. Throughout history it was considered normal not to be tolerable. You can't get away with being 'immoral' or 'bad' while still retaining the status of 'tolerable' you are either tolerable or not.

Last edited by Freak-Z on 29 Dec 2011, 7:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

So basically back in your day it was better? And what do you mean by less emo? You are being extremely cruel to just call them or people who relate to them whiny emo kids, what do you want them to do? Bottle up their feelings?

No need to be rude. I'd like to keep this discussion civil, if at all possible.


Because there is no universal definition of 'normal'. We can only say 'normal' when referring to individuals who don't immediately stand out in society due to their ability to get along with it without causing a notable disturbance in the rest of the pack. You wouldn't notice a casually dressed person on the street in the middle of a big city, but you would notice some joker walking down the street in a clown suit like it's nothing out of the ordinary.


Let's not turn this into a mud-slinging competition, alright? That's not what I started this thread for, and so far, I don't think I've said anything to provoke anyone into insulting me, directly or indirectly; so why are you?


Not necessarily boring, just... Average. I have yet to meet a single well-adjusted person who I'd call genuinely boring; everyone's got stories to tell, a sense of humor, goals, fears, different points of view, etc. A well-written character doesn't need to be dysfunctional. Their appeal comes from being able to see multiple facets of their personality, and not just their 'good' or 'bad' traits.


Going to school = preparing to enter the adult world as a productive member of society. Obtaining the social and intellectual skills necessary to make your way in the world with other people, get along with them, and be able to support yourself in some way. By meaningful, I mean in a way that gives back to society; a job that provide goods or services to others that isn't inherently destructive or dangerous to the consumer. And very, very few people can't contribute to society in that way, even if it's just some really small little thing. Even the elderly and the disabled can, to some extent, with the right accommodations.


Have you ever had a genuine friend? If you have, then you know what I'm talking about. Whenever you're together, you never think about 'what can this person do for me'. You think 'I like spending time with this person; they're interesting/funny/creative/ smart/kind/insightful, etc.' the only people who think objectively about people are the ones who do it consciously, or they're psychopaths.


No; unemployed people are capable of contributing to society- they just don't have the opportunity to do so while unemployed. Key word: Capable.


Challenging a statistic I just pulled out as a SWAG (Scientific Wild-Ass Guess)? the point is, there are very few people on this planet who don't fit under that broad definition. Those who don't are probably psychopaths. And even then, psychopaths are still capable of contributing to society positively and showing interest in the world and people around them, even if they're hiding ulterior motives.


You're berating me for trying to see and wanting to bring out the positive potential in people, even if they're not technically 'good' people? I'd say you have a problem with idealists and optimists, then. Because while I'm certainly not an optimist, I'm definitely an idealist. I suggest you get used to that, or not bother responding any more of my posts that concern the nature of humanity and/or how it's portrayed in fiction.


If you think a lot of people aren't tolerable, then you have either met a lot of people with very poor impulse control, or you've been raised under the impression that being an as*hole to other people is perfectly acceptable. I, and most of the rest of society, as far as anyone can tell, have not.

You know you persistently accused me of black-and-white thinking in your previous posts, right? Humans are complex creatures; no one is ever completely bad or completely good, or completely normal or completely abnormal. It's always in varying shades of gray. I myself am considered to be a 'good' person, but I'm not without my frustrating and irritating qualities. By my own admission, I'm stubborn, controlling, perfectionistic, cynical and argumentative, just to name the top ones. But that doesn't prevent me from being compassionate, empathetic, sympathetic, sentimental, imaginative, creative, fun-loving and easy-going the rest of the time.


Probably just not shove the fact that things aren't going their way down everyone's throats. I'd certainly appreciate that., both in reality and in fiction.

Yeah, bottling up the feelings, pretty much. It's the way I was raised, more or less, and of course I have complications from doing it, but I much prefer seeing a character who bottles up his feelings and gets stuff done rather than...not. And it's not back in my day, I'm 20. So no, back in my day, it wasn't better. But yes, I much prefer characters that now people consider "one dimensional" who aren't awarded the luxury of feelings, as I can relate to that. In my life experiences, I wasn't awarded the luxury of having feelings, so I just ignored them. Now, when things are more calmed down, I have to deal with these silly feelings.

What I mean by this is, if you're a soldier in Afghanistan, or a starving person in Ethiopia, you don't get to have feelings. You're too concerned with your own survival for them, you simply can't be an emo kid, or else you die.

I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. Basically, I relate much more to things like this happening to characters when they're emo, as it's more or less what happened to me.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzOVNnvvaRg[/youtube]

Anti-heroes/darker characters are just simply much more believable than the classic 'Knight in shining armor" type. And less cheesy. Too much angst/wangst gets too annoying though.

I do tend to base my characters personality upon the settings I write, so therefore lets say a character is a refugee from a wartorn land. If I was writing the events of his/her experiences of it, I wouldn't put much at all in the way of optimistic/bright feelings in there. They are simply out of place in the setting. Does than mean I transgressed? f**k no, it means im actually putting myself into my writings, to actually give the characters a depth, a reason. Of course I am also the sort to kill off fan favorites and not apologize about it. My job isn't to please the fans, it is to write something I myself would enjoy reading.

Also with me expect villains that don't exactly fit the mold. Some are just simply misguided people who genuinely want to bring about good for example. Also my villains tend to be more pragmatic than most. For example lets say the hero/group of heroes encountered the villain. The villain wouldn't make the cliched mistake of pulling a huge expository speech detailing the hows and whys. If he did he is an ineffectual villain. Same for the heroes, if they gave a speech in the same manner, they to would be f****d. Either side would just simply kill the other while they were giving the speech. The only way I allow such speeches to happen would be if they can actually get away with it. I also tend to break the
wide-eyed idealists and such though.

I do have a tendency to be more of a deconstructionist author so I do walk a fine line. If you dont know what I mean? look up these pages: The TV tropes definition fits thee context far better though.

Deconstruction - TvTropes
Deconstruction - Wikipedia



So in the end, Bright happy cheesy sappy overoptimistic dribble has its place, same for the Extremely dark and angst-ridden tales., as well as the gray area in between.

I'm not here to promote the White-Knight archetype; far from it. The main character in my novel is no white knight, but he's still a generally good, well-adjusted person, despite his faults and fears, with his own realistic set of hopes, dreams, desires and goals.

That's why I started this thread. It seems like a lot of writers here don't seem to know when to stop laying on the woe-is-me crap, and to not base their entire story on how much emotional baggage they can pile up on a character and still get away with it.

As I said, it is indeed a fine line that needs walking. Too much idealism and what not makes a character unbelievable (yet still useful for deconstruction and reconstruction, a good example would be Sansa stark from A Song of Ice and Fire). Too much angst and it also becomes unbelievable (except in rare circumstances and/or is used to illustrate a very specific point such as s**t happens/bad things happen to good people, good example would be Metamorphosis by Kafka)

But yeah, with my writings I tend to want to break archetypes apart and perhaps even rebuild. Its a huge part of the reason I look up to George R. R. Martin. Yeah some characters may be filled with angst (of course look at the setting as well) but they tend to also have moments where they aren't a complete wreck. His series' also tend to be a major deconstruction of various Archetypes/Cliches/Tropes. If you keep an eye out for them you tend to notice them.

Can someone provide an example of one of these characters?

Which ones? The overly-dysfunctional ones, or the properly dysfunctional ones? Or both?

It doesn't matter if the character is boring or not, what matters is, when writing this character in a story, you must emotionally connect your character to the audience.

You can make a 'boring' character interesting.

I don't have an example to hand right now, but I'm sure a like-minded user will elaborate on this.