I would like to discuss something that I consider a masterpiece of storytelling, although many, particularly @Wreybies, would disagree with me. One good bit of advice is to give each plot or character arc a payoff for the reader. After all, your reader has spent some time, often multiple books, getting invested in these characters, so they have to get something out of it, right? Well... let me introduce you to Lena. She's a character from the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. She's the first person Covenant meets when he is summoned into the Land (the fantasy world). She's a young girl who takes Covenant in, helps him, heals his wounds with hurtloam, the healing mud and takes him to her village and family and gives him shelter. She's good, she's kind, she believes in him as a prophesied saviour of the Land. She's pure and innocent. And Covenant rapes her almost at the first opportunity. He does it because he doesn't believe the Land is real, and he's grappling with having his leprosy being healed and can't handle the all the new feelings - and rejects them as being deadly to him if he returns to Earth. There's no good excuses for why he did it. Even if all of those things were true (and they are), he still chose to do it. The rape completely breaks Lena. Later on, her mother dies trying to unsuccessfully summon Covenant back to the Land to take responsibility for his crime. Her father falls into despair and nearly unleashes a ritual that would destroy the world. And the daughter born from the rape later falls in love with Covenant and dies trying to defeat the Big Bad, and Covenant can't save her. Covenant later meets Lena again, who has grown old (as time in the Land moves faster than time on Earth), and she has gone mad. Even in though she is mad, she still loves him and believes in him. And she dies after being stabbed (by whom, I forget), still in love with and believing in him. There's no redemption, no happy end for her and her family, no moral lesson or grand meaning to her death, or all her and her family's suffering. Why does it work? Well, for one thing, it mirrors real life. Not all deaths have meaning. Not all crimes can be absolved. Covenant is confronted by the consequences of what he did every time she, or one of the members of her family appear on the page. He can't make it right - he can't bring back her mother, he can't undo her father's despair and guilt, he can't save her (and his own) daughter and he can't fix her. It's made worse by the fact that she's mad but still loves him. She can't really forgive him properly for his crime because she's mad, and she's not angry at him so he can't even justify her anger to himself. It forms a burden that Covenant has to carry all the way through the books, and it never goes away. Donaldson didn't write that character arc to provide a satisfactory resolution. It's supposed to be brutal and raw, and that's why it works. No tearful redemption, forgiveness, vengeance or anything as neat as that. And that's the whole point of the arc. The reader is supposed to feel uncomfortable and raw. I can't think of any other character arcs like that in other works I've read. I'm actually writing something that is (coincidentally) similar right now. I wasn't even thinking about the book when I started. What do you think? Do you think it can work? Would you ever write a character arc like that, or have you done so? Have you read the series? Am I talking complete bovine feces? Should the book be burnt and never see the light of day again?
I think it could work. This plot does add character development to Covenant, even if that wasn't what the author was intending. Because him realizing he can't fix what he did is making him self-aware. Not to mention that by the end of the story, he's alone like he was in the beginning of the story. So, a circular plot, so to speak. Another thing to take in to account is how Covenant feel once he understands the fallout of what he did? Does he just go about his life unchanged? Or does this make him stop and think? Also, what happens to his daughter who is in love with him? Does he return her love and begin an affair? Or does he reject her because it's 'not right' for her to feel like she does? Or more complex, he likes her too, but is finally having some moral crisis? It gets very complex and has a lot of potential characterization directions. I think though that overall, the real question you are asking is 'is this a moral story to tell?' Which, I find to be highly subjective. Because each person has their own set of morals. As a writer, there are (albeit few) things I won't write. But that doesn't mean another person can't write or enjoy what I don't. So, that's where I stand. I think stories that I personally don't find align with my morals are different, but not wrong. As for if I would write a character arc like this, I imagine did write something similar when I wrote a story about Hades and Persephone, or in another book, Domitian and Flavia (Ancient Roman Emperor and his wife/niece). The key difference though I would make is having the events have a great impact on the characters and world as a whole. Because if this plot could be replaced by a lamp, why is it in the story to begin with? That's the thing for me with darker plots. It has to have a reason and just putting it in there to make a story dark or edgy for the sake of serves no purpose to me. I have even cut content from my books, because even though it's really cool or dark, it serves no purpose and just for shock value. There is no faster way to lose the readers. And no, I have not read this series. But I might look into at some point when I am done with Game of Thrones. Nope. You're not talkin' cow pies here, I promise. As for burning a book like this, I would say no. Just because you don't like a book, doesn't mean you should burn it or it shouldn't see the light of day. Pardon me while I grab my soapbox, but just because a story contains (legal) content you don't like, doesn't mean I, the author can't write and enjoy it. I live strongly by the old Fanfiction adage: Don't like, Don't Read. Aka, don't engage with stories that you don't like and tell others they are 'morally wrong' for writing what they did.
I think that's *exactly* what the author was intending. Otherwise, the rape is just gratuitous, and it takes place very early in the story, soon after Covenant arrives in the Land, like, on the first night. He thinks about it all the time, because he's almost always being confronted by one of the people who have been affected by it - in the second book, his daughter, in the third book, Lena and her father. It weighs on him deeply, and there's no relief from it for him. He's crippled by his guilt. He doesn't reject her, but he can't have an affair with her either - firstly, because she's his daughter and secondly, because of the guilt of what he did to her mother. In the end, his daughter dies because of her overconfidence in her own power, and Covenant, the only person who might have been able to stop her, doesn't. So he fails her, too. This is how to do isekai well...
Well, then it's meant to be in the story. I have seen authors just use rape as shock value, which isn't something I personally enjoy. But again, you do what you want as a writer. I can just put the book down. So, since it was planned, I would say it is part of the overall plot, not just meaningless. Oh, so I was right on that this event did cause character development for the main character. Then, why are you asking if a 'no payoff' plot like this works? There IS payoff. The character grows and changes, because of his actions. Just like any other character. And I think a stagnant/no payoff plot would be one where the main character wouldn't feel guilty and keeps going on with his life. He would ignore all the people mad at him and go adventure, save the world, sleep with hundred of other women, all the stuff. I don't think 'can't' is the reason. Emperor Nero asked the Roman Senate if he could marry his mom. They said no, because it would give her too much power. That aside, I would see this ending as a tragic/actions have consequences plot. So, the character does grow, change, things happen because of his actions. So, I would say this plot has payoff. As for redemption, does every character need to go through this arc? Do people need to be redeemed?
I will also raise you 'Prince of Thorns' by Mark Lawrence. Book opens with main character pillaging a village, has a few lines about he raped a couple of women and the story continues. Zero meaning and consequences. I didn't read much more, but the main character didn't really have any guilt or anything about it. Basically, it was like an average day for him.
I never said it was. There is sort of payoff for the world - it's saved and endures. Which is fine for a plot arc. But Covenant himself doesn't - he gets to survive and return to his own world, but he's in exactly the same state as he was right at the start of the book. He's still a leper, and his situation isn't any better. And Lena doesn't get any. She dies a meaningless death, her whole family is dead or broken, just like her. And keep in mind, she's the most sympathetic character in the series. That's what I meant by no payoff and meaningless. Not meaningless in terms of the story, but meaningless in that there's no great truth revealed or moral conflict resolved - her death isn't some kind of grand gesture, and there is no catharsis for the character or the reader.
[COLOR=var(--darkreader-text-000000, #e8e6e3)] [/COLOR] Without knowing how the story progresses, I couldn't judge.
True, I guess the world was saved, which is important. Anyway, does Covenant still have the same feelings when he comes back to his world? Does he still remember what happened and what he did? And ah, so she's a Melanie character. (See Gone With the Wind.) Sweet person surrounded by jerks and dies. You're right though, for her character, there is no payoff or meaning. Which I think brings me to another issue with Lena's character on the part of the author. (And also how a lot of authors treat female characters.) Because she COULD be a lamp. She doesn't have a story arc and I think that's where the main problem lies. Lena doesn't have a character arc/character at all. She could be replaced by a lamp and the plot could be the same. Covenant finds a lamp, breaks it. Makes people mad at him for the whole story, because he broke the lamp that doesn't work like it used to. Which is annoying to me as a writer, because then having characters who are lamps, make the story meaningless. So, now I am on that side of the argument. https://fanlore.org/wiki/Sexy_Lamp_Test and I think this also applies: https://geekfeminism.fandom.com/wiki/Women_in_refrigerators
That's fair. I didn't end up reading the rest of the story. But it really felt more like it had the vibe of, "Oh, I went out pillaging and raping today, because it's Monday."
I would say she - and her whole family - does indeed have an arc. Lena has characterisation - she's the one completely pure and innocent character in the story. All of Donaldson's characters are distinct. You couldn't replace her with one of the other female characters because you wouldn't feel the same sympathy for her. Like anyone else, replacing her with a character identical to her is just her with a different name. A different character would react differently - one might be angry, might seek revenge and so on. Lena doesn't. She had a deep rooted belief in the inherent "goodness" of the Land and in Covenant as the saviour, and all of that is shattered in an instant, but mad though she is, she never stops believing in that. She isn't just generic "villager A". That's what makes Donaldson such a good writer. No named character is a stereotype. Different people, even in shared cultures, have different morals and beliefs that make them distinct, completely unlike, say, Robert Jordan whose characters largely all behave in the same collective way as the rest of their group. Just me describing it is inadequate. I think you'd have to read it to fully understand what I mean.
I think we have reached a impasse in our debate here. Because as I view things, which might be how you view them, I can give all my female characters as much characterization/personality traits as I want. Some still turn out to be lamps I need to fix. Because they don't CHANGE the story in a meaningful way. I have 2 who I love their personalities, but they don't have their own plot/motives/are really just there to add characterization to the male characters. Which is a shame, because I MADE them and love them. But I need to take these characters back to the drawing board to give them their reason for being in the story. Even if the author couldn't replace Lena with another character, because the persona changes, it doesn't make her any less of a sexy lamp as far as I know, given the information you have given me. Again, I disagree. Because believing in the 'inherent goodness' is a personality trait that does not effect the story or her role in it. As I see it, Lena is Fridge-fodder. But that's my own opinion on a work I have not read. I get that. But I think we have come to a crossing in this debate where we take different roads, sadly.
Very interesting discussion. Sexy lamps made me think of Fight Club. WARNING, graphic violence: "I felt like destroying something beautiful." That character who gets his face rearranged is only in the movie for this reason, so it is intentional that he's a pretty boy. Is he a sexy lamp? Is that bad? More on the topic of redemption, the lead in my WIP is more afraid of being forgiven by is parents than being rejected by them for his past horribly irresponsible actions. He can live with the idea of being a bad guy, but he can't handle being a bad guy who is loved and/or forgiven, or unpunished.
I think this thread started out of another thread started by @typree about what makes a good story. My personal take is that plot imposition can ruin a good book, character arcs will drop me right out unless they make real world sense and pat resolutions are irritating, and absolutely not because I'm waiting for a sequel to ties up the loose ends. This is going to sound arrogant and something else that has slipped out of my mind when it was there just a few minutes ago. What if the book isn't so much focused on the character arc, the growth and development of the character faced with whatever? What if the author's intent is to bring change in the reader? A scenario is presented, The reader understands what has happened. The author spends the next 3-120,000 words examining what the reader thought they understood but the reading has strips taken off in turn and arrives at the conclusion with everything as was only different. The characters haven't arced but the reader may have realised something. That may not be satisfying, but that also depends on definition of the word. "Satisfying" meaning character resolution with some sense of completeness is not always the author's intent. Discomfort, amusement, diversion, revelation of meaning/meaninglessness can all be the athor's target. Many of Carver's stories leave the reader raw. No resolution, no growth. They're worthwhile because of acute observations on how people fail to cope, fail to move on, sabotage the routes for redemption. The idea of introducing a character whose only function is to be abused without any sense of humanity is not something that appeals to me, but not something I'd couch automatically in moralistic terms, though that can certainly be an issue. I also argue that putting a character through that experience to a "satisfying" conclusion is equally disrespectful and, let's go for it, immoral. I read one of those Covenant books back when I though my hair was mine forever. So long ago I can't remember the details only to say I remember enjoying it. I knew it was part of a series but never went back for more for no reason in particular. The description outlined of those character's development sounds, to my ears, as a proper representation of the impact of trauma, significant that, for Nao, it's still thrown around to make it make sense, which is a strong validation of good writing in my opinion. The word that slipped my mind was pretentious.
No. The only reason the lamp analogy works is if the character is so bland that the reader doesn't care about them. As I explained, Lena's death DOES affect the story. It weighs on Covenant and affects everyone related to her. Covenant endures, and even though it's a wound that never heals, he doesn't give in to despair. My point, which I will reiterate again, is that Lena HERSELF gets no closure. Her death isn't a grand sacrifice. She doesn't get redeemed. She doesn't forgive Covenant because she never rejected him in the first place, giving him a moment of catharsis. She doesn't gain a suitable revenge, posthumously or not. Covenant never suffers a punishment or redeems his crime. You're missing the entire point of what I'm getting at. That may well be my fault, because I didn't explain it very well, but this conversation is getting us nowhere. Read the books, then you'll get what I'm driving at.
I would say that many things in real life don't end with neat, satisfying conclusions. There isn't always a meaning to suffering. Not all loose ends are tied up. Some wounds never heal. I think good writing should reflect that - it actually makes it more relatable. I think we've all had situations that haven't really had closure. My 19-year old cousin died in a motorcycle accident. There was no meaning in that. Her mother, my aunt, died later of cancer and she never got closure. I don't think she ever really accepted her daughter's death and that's probably what drove her to an early death.
I personally disagree about the lamp test, but I think this is where we part ways in terms of writing thought. I suppose I should have been more clear, that before her death, I view Lena as not having enough of her own arc and reason for being in the story other than 'sad rape victim who goes mad and dies.' But again, that's my personal view of the character and her arc. But you are allowed to feel however you wish about it, even if it is opposite of my own. And I understand that Lena herself gets no closure, which I feel still ties into the lamp/fridge trope. Because it makes it that the character's suffering is merely for the male character to grow. In some cases, this works and has meaning, but I personally feel it is over-used in fiction. More than this, I wish more male characters were fridged so the male or female lead could grow. To me, it's the sex imbalance between the amount of men vs. women who are fridged to force character development. I think I understand what you were saying and I think you explained the story/context/characters well enough. It's merely that I disagree with the interpretation of the work you presented. As I said above, you are 100% allowed to have whatever view you want of this work. I just see things differently from where I stand and that's okay, too. I hope you understand that even though we see things differently, it doesn't mean I think any less of you. Because I don't. It's just we have different viewpoints as we look at the same mountain.
Not always. Sexy lamp isn't always bad in some situations. Not all. I think with side-characters and characters who are NOT main, there is some understanding they are set-dressing. Put there to add life to the story, but not get their whole arc or much character development. I think sometimes side-characters can become big players, but they don't need to be. Also, didn't watch the clip, because I haven't seen fight club and want to at some point. So, trying to avoid as many spoilers. Although, the big spoiler has been ruined ages ago. But whatever.
