Okay, this one isn't asking for advice, I'm just curious. Prompted by a thread I made earlier today, I was wondering when everyone else decides it's time to just let a character stop being abused by life. Question: When do you generally decide when a character's been through enough? When do you decide that a character's due for some pain? Just a fun topic for people to share their opinions, enjoy!
There generally comes a point where you've made your point. Either the character is going through hell for the sake of the plot, and eventually you just need to do something else, or they're suffering to emphasise a theme, and eventually you're just repeating yourself. My main character ends up being held against her will by an ex. I could go into detail about various gruesome things that happen to her, or I could give the reader enough for them to imagine the rest, and thereby maintain a solid pace. It helps, of course, that the reader is much better at imagining terrible things that anyone can be at writing them. Ask someone to think of something terrible, and they'll think that personally chills them; I can only go for things that personally chill me, and there's zero guarantee they'll feel the same way.
Stop abusing a character when it fulfills the plot requirements. In other words, when your plot has advanced, you can safely move on. Don't get bogged down. Keep up the pace. Too much of anything gets monotonous. Besides, personal trauma is dark and morose. Judge the audience and tone of the book before going into deep tragedy dives, or you risk losing the reader.
I think that when you have caused them enough problems/pain or whatever that you have enough to write about the aftermath and continue with the next part of the story, that's when you stop. Pain, whether it be physical/mental/emotional, seems to be good for conflict. So, with that said, when the story is getting a bit too "calm," I think that's a good time to throw in some pain.
I think it's important to put our characters through a little bit of hell or torture so readers can see what they are made of. This, though not in it's exact words, comes from Ray Bradbury, and I fully agree with it.
Sure it depends upon the themes of the story as to how to test the metal of your characters. Granted unless you are as cruel as I am, then you most likely won't constantly be trying to fuck their lives up until the very end (at least in my current WIP). Though in most cases it all falls down to the appropriate screws to twist and how far to tighten them, but in most cases you rarely go past 5 (unless you are sick and twisted bastard to your characters and feel the need to crank them all the way to 11). Creativity and diverse range of ways to mess with your characters is a good way to keep things interesting.
At what point do your CHARACTERS decide they've had enough, and want to change things? Presumably, they will reach that point. If a character is strong-minded, they probably won't put up with much crap before they react. If a character is weak-minded, or lacks confidence or power, they will probably put up with a lot before they get desperate enough to try to change things. It's the changing things that matters. And that goes for things outwith their control as well. I mean, how many different illnesses does a character need to have before the story can move on? It depends on their circumstances, and, of course, the nature of the illnesses and the progression or recuperation time. But don't overdo it. Suffer suffer suffer suffer suffer suffer suffer ...doesn't make a story. You can do a lot with your character's thoughts and feelings when it comes to this kind of thing. If they feel they've been through enough, and are feeling rebellious—or fed up—or unlucky—or whatever they feel—you can let us in on these thoughts without having to put the reader through umpteen scenes of poke, prod, screeching agony or pitiful waifery. Again, as with so much of writing, less is usually more. If you constantly rerun abuse, or pain, or trauma, or injustice, the reader will become desensitised to it. (The character might as well, which can make for interesting story fodder.) There is also the possibility that certain readers will be turned on by pain in various forms and the story can turn into a sadistic/masochistic wallow. The author might seem to be having a bit too much fun as well. I have certainly read books where I felt the AUTHOR was enjoying inflicting mental and physical pain on the characters, far more than the story needed, and I find that quite off-putting, to be honest. Of course it can be a harmless fetish—writing or reading about excessive blood and gore, and cruelty, etc, if that's your thing—but it can make for uncomfortable and unpleasant reading for those of us who don't share that fetish. Fine, if you need to make the reader experience an unpleasant situation for story purposes. But don't go on and on about it. Be selective and precise. A few graphic examples that are original and memorable should do the trick. Do be mindful of what you're actually creating.
Have you seen The Elephant Man? It's only my favourite movie. There is this epic moment when he confronts a crowd that's chasing him and shouts, trembling (revolting): "I'm not an elephant! I'm a man!" Alas, he does suffer some more because the disease progresses relentlessly, and he actively causes his own demise when he can't take it anymore. This comment is a "just saying". Sometimes the suffering and its inevitability it's the whole point of the story. The movie always melts me to tears, though.
Well, yes, I won't argue with that. A stunning movie. And, as you say, the inescapability of the protagonist's pain formed the basis of the story—although it wasn't the whole story (more later.) But the OP seemed to be asking when and how much pain a writer should inflict on a character—presumably to engender sympathy for the character—but also implied that the pain would be temporary. The phrasing of these questions seems to imply plot points, rather than the entire point of the story. At least that's the meaning I was responding to. I didn't mean you couldn't have a story about suffering. I just meant that the story grinds to a halt while the suffering ensues, unless there is some kind of progression as well. The Elephant Man was an amazing movie, though. He had people who learned to love him, once they gave him a chance and treated him like the human being he was, and he had moments where he was quite happy. The story, I believe, was more about how we regard people with disabilities, than it was about suffering, as such. It's a movie I went to see three times in the cinema, because it made such a strong impression on me. However, it was a movie, NOT a book. If it had been written (perhaps it was a book beforehand ...I don't know) I wonder what the tone of the book would have been. Would it just have been chapter after chapter of suffer suffer suffer suffer suffer? I do suspect it would have been more about how his suffering was eventually recognised, and while his physical disabilities couldn't be altered, he was made more comfortable and his lovely personality was encouraged to flourish. So that when he died, he was mourned and missed. I do maintain that suffering constant pain is a life-altering circumstance, but it doesn't make a story on its own. There has to be more to it.
I see what you mean. But I do think this movie was about pain, existentially. I wouldn't change anything if this was a book. (Also no idea if there was fictional book. Now I'm curious. But it was based on a real story, printed on book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_History_of_the_Elephant_Man) Maybe not what the OP was asking about, granted.