The Type of Characters You Do not Take Too

Too boring- well said. Personally, I usually hated reading books with animal POV's, mostly because it's only ever described what he/she/it is thinking, never how it works naturally. A horse running, for example, is flat, boring, and too vague. A horse in full gallop, hooves hitting hard against stone and gravel, sholders moving rhythmically and methodically, is much more vivid and interesting. What I really can't stand, though, is when there are those characters that are the epitome of all that is evil/good. Makes for a really one-sided conflict of oppinion, if you can even call it a conflict. When I read/write, I want to wonder whether the person will make the right decision or instead cause general mayhem. It keeps the mind guessing, keeps the reader interested.

 

eek!! I would not say bonus.
I woud say unsual and not something that happens very often.

Interesting.
Lord Byron was crippled at the foot too and he wrote mindblogginng poetry.
Just becasue one is disabled doesn't make them necessarily feeble..so I don't know why Dickens made him crippled.

yes I agree. I think it is better for the writer to use his own voice to project his own thoughts.
using weaknesses as a mean to an end is rather weak.

 

confident yes,conceited I am not so sure.

 

You'd be surprised at how many stories feature a token wise old guy who dies at the end.

In some stories, the wise mentor is of a different race/ethnicity than the MC. For instance, if the MC is lost out in the American Plains, it's the Native American Indians. If it's in the jungles, it's a young native from that area. If it's in the mountains of Asia, its a monk. If it's in Antebellum South, or a South circa Civil Rights Movement, it's a black person. If it's out the deserts, it's a Bedouin. If it's set in Japan/China/specific Asian country, it's an old Asian man.

Easy. He wanted Scrooge to have second thoughts about being a selfish a-hole. I mean, you wouldn't let a sickly, crippled child die because you wouldn't give his parents the money they need to get him to a doctor, right? Money you have in excess to begin with?

Agreed.

 

on second thoughts you are very right. I had forgotten about those stories.
Now that you have mentioned it, it is almost always a man and hardly a woman and they are always mostly old with a beard. LOL

 

And the token old man from The Cay...HAD A BEARD!!! xD

 

What really bothered me about a book I read recently was that the main character had no discernable motivation for any of their actions. They just did things with no explanation, backstory or inner monologue to clue us in. That drove me nuts. It's one thing to be mysterious, but I need to feel that there is actually a mystery, not a blank space where the character's personality should be.

I also cannot stand helpless token females who only exist to make the men in the story look good and characters who don't have any passion.

 

Oh no!!
wearing a beard is a stereotype of wisdom
like an attractive man or woman wearing glasses to indicate intelligence right?
God is the only relic/fresco that is painted with a beard too.

 

Standard. Normal. The expected bedroom behaviour between same-sex couples. Nothing kinky or unusual.

I actually didn't read much in my early-to-mid teens purely because all the books directed at my age group/gender (those available in local bookstores, that is) contained that helpless female character as the MC or the love interest. Even now I won't read a book where this sort of character has a lead role.

 

I felt the same way, with a few exceptions. I honestly think that there's a faction out there that wants to undo the pro-feminism work of the 40s/50s and 70s, and that wants to push things back to that "helpless woman who needs a rescuer" ideal. It really irritates the crap out of me. But that's for another thread, I suppose.

 

Irritates the crap out of me as well, and I'm a dude!

Other characters I don't take too kindly towards? Arrogant heroes. Heroes that are so arrogant that they see it fit to rub it into everyone's faces. Example? Gilgamesh. He's not a hero, at least in my book. Edniku (or whatever his name is) is much more of a hero than Gilgamesh. It's...kind of a bad sign if the secondary person's much more heroic than the main guy you want your readers to root for, no?

 

I don't mind the idea of a character being reduced to a state where they become that "helpless woman" -- with a good reason to justify it, of course -- but if it's there right from the beginning then it'll most likely put me off reading. I also expect them to bounce back from that state by the end of the story.

 

I'm sure that sometimes it's deliberate, though. Sam comes across as way more heroic than Frodo, for me at least. When the main hero has some major faults, and the secondary one seems to have more caliber, this can make for some really cool character dynamics. (Or when the caliber-having person isn't even the secondary character, but someone who no one expects it from at all, and vice versa).

 

Me too. I don't mind if it's treated as a flaw (whether they grow a pair by the end or not) but I won't read the book if dependency is romanticized.

 

In my creative writing class, all of the stories we reviewed were led by beautiful characters who were forgiving, kind, open-minded, strong, brave, etc. We have yet to review a story where a character has actual flaws that impact the story somehow. My conclusion: everybody in that class is taking it for an elective English credit in place of College English--which no one wants to take. In contrast, we have yet to review my story, in which the protagonist stalks a young girl with plans to rape and murder her. His major flaw is the leading force in the story.

I digress. I hate Sues as much as the next guy or girl, but my most hated character types are as follows:

-The average fanservice anime girl who throws punches and screams whenever someone sees her panties.
-The weak woman who sits in the corner and cheers the hero on as he saves her worthless bum. Zelda. Peach.
-The strong woman who wants to prove herself better at her craft than males and owns them in the process.
-Stereotypes of any kind.

Stereotypes exist for a reason, but people are generally more complicated than that.

 

Agreed, however I like it if they learn how to overcome it/work with it in some way.

For instance, one of my MCs (heroine of a mystery series set during the American Civil War) is deaf with ear deformities (the ears themselves didn't form, so they're just ear holes with bits of cartilage around them.) Naturally shy and reclusive, she clings onto her older sister for some support, looks up to her as a way to connect with the world, but she soon learns to 'grow a pair' as you put it and speak up for herself. She's still shy by nature, but she learns to not totally rely on her sister (and boyfriend) for everything.

...Not sure if that was what you were talking about, but I felt like putting in my two lincolns with the whole 'helpless woman' thing.

 

HUH?? Are you saying the only bearded figure depicted in art is God?

Sometimes I really think you live on another planet...

 

What I think Cacian was trying to say that, in art, the figures who should really be depicted as wise men with beards is God and the prophets.

But yeah, like a goatee is a symbol of evil. It's the usual cliches you'd find in books.

 

I have yet to read about a specific type of character I really hate, but what I do hate is when a character just doesn't change or grow at all. It turns me off when there is no character progression because to me there is no point.

I would much rather see a character hit rock bottom and turn into a horrible and lousy person than for him/her to just stay the same and become boring.

 

Characters I take to, and try to write, are antagonists that are in some sense fully justified in their actions, at least from their own perspective. Their goal may be in opposition to the protag's, but they must HAVE a goal, and their motives for wanting it should make sense, not just be the product of some psychotic obsession - or rather the writer's need to create conflict.

I have two antagonists in my current WIP, one who starts out wanting to persuade the protag to support and facilitate her goal, but turns against him when she realises his actions directly conflict with it, and the other whose political aims and moral values are always in direct opposition to the MC's. They are not inherently bad people, their goals just directly conflict with those of the MC. Both goals are completely understandable and in a sense, justified. The only reason we're not rooting for them is because this isn't their story.

I could just as easily have written it from the opposite side, and showed how my selfish, self obsessed MC tramples on the dreams of his wife in the pursuit of his own happiness, and endangers national security for his own moral and political agenda

 

Depends. I hate most fan fiction characters-Mainly the girls, who are pretty much all the same. Fan fiction about manga and anime repulses me. I don't mind vampires and werewolves, as long as the characters are well written (I love the Underworld series) and not just some angsty teenager with fangs *cough* Twilight and almost every teen romance novel *cough*

I don't mind non-human characters as long as they are well written. I like stuff like Lord of the Rings, City of Ashes, Wolven etc. (One thing I can't STAND is when the writer repeatedly mentions how much more advanced a character-for instance a werewolf-is, saying stuff like "With his heightened werewolf sense of hearing..." etc etc etc. I don't mind if it has something like this though:

DO:
Jack's ears pricked and his eyes darted from left to right "Something's coming" he said in a hushed tone.

DON'T:
With his advanced werewolf hearing Jack heard sounds of movement nearby...

And so on and so forth.

 

Heros. They are just... Bleargh. Being evil is awesome and is the path that rocks.

 

I am with you totally!

My Aunt Clara told me of an old Sicilian adage, "Friends and lover come and go, but a good enemy is a joy forever."

Darth Vader had it right. Even his son had to "hand" it to him. Bring on the villains!

 

I saw what you did there ;p

I agree completely with you. You know your hero sucks when everyone prefers the villian over him.

 

That's the problem I usually have with any genre. To me the villains always have a better back-story, more defined goals, they drive the plot, they even drive better cars.

I even prefer 'the rogue' in stories. In keeping with the Star Wars analogy, it's probably because I'm most like Han Solo. Looking for trouble, but fun at a party. Think Montgomery Gentry's song, "One In Every Crowd."

I see heroes as pasty, driven only by attempts to foil someone else's plot, not find one of their own. As a young boy that's why I liked Batman. He was crazier than a loon, but at least he had a plan--and a nice car.

I'd work for Darth Vader.