(Extra)Ordinary Characters
It's a good bet that most of us here who write, write fantasy, science fiction, or other speculative work. This post should apply regardless of genre. It came to mind when I was responding to the post about the Hero's Journey and I caught myself starting to make a lengthy comment about characters being more ordinary vs. extraordinary. I finally had to cut it and edited it out because it's a topic that I think deserves its own post and separate discussion.
In the past--not on this community as far as I know--I have seen an argument put forth that protagonists, and likewise their antagonists, need to be extraordinary in some way. This idea, along with the desire to insert an idealized version of oneself, is likely how the "Mary Sue" came to be. You know what they say about good intentions, after all...
The case that is made is that people don't want to just read about a character who has no particularly stand-out or memorable qualities. Moreover, the argument put forth the idea that truly ordinary people would not push forward most plots. One can write about day-to-day life and stories--even in a fantasy or science fiction world--and in that context, where it doesn't matter if Jane Doe is a superhero, the ordinary protagonist can work quite well. We all have problems in our lives, and they are problems that can happen to anyone. But the argument that I once saw made was that even these day-to-day events are more interesting when our characters are in some way extraordinary. That doesn't mean they have to be the smartest, prettiest, best, or kindest, but they need to be memorable. For instance, if your character is going to solve crimes, you need to convince your reader that your character is capable of this, but you also need to write that character in a way that your readers will remember. If your character is going to save the world from the Evil Overlord, then the reader needs to be able to believe your character is skilled enough in some area to achieve that--either in leadership, charm, intelligence, combat--whatever your protagonist needs to win.
This also goes back to another conversation I had in the comm just recently. It is okay to have an extraordinary character. I am perfectly fine with your character being sexy and charming and skilled in a dozen ways, if you can write that character well. I'm going to have a better time believing it if people don't fawn over them "just because," and not everyone is either jealous or loves them. I'll also buy into it better if he or she has some character flaws, especially if they make sense for that character's personality and backstory. You don't have to hide that your character is extraordinary behind an ordinary facade. In fact, if you do, people are going to notice, and in some cases, it would be better to write someone who is extraordinary.
"But wait, Ghost, are you saying we should write Sues?"
... Well, no. But let's take a look at a couple of this comm's "favorites" for a moment.
Eragon is supposed to begin as an ordinary farm boy. Then he proceeds to basically accomplish nothing at all over the course of around a year or two of in-story time, while others do all the work. The writer tries to make him extraordinary through Saphira and the powers he gains, but it's too late. There is and was nothing special about Eragon, other than his incapacity for empathy later on. The problem is that Eragon needs to be extraordinary somehow. He's the first of a new order of Riders. He is the one person Saphira chose as her rider out of possible thousands. And it's okay that he's a farmboy, but there needs to be more to this than "He's Brom's son," and "He's the only guy who hunts in the Spine." The former could be anyone, and the latter may not be true. We can be fairly certain there are other towns and villages along the Spine--meaning people from other towns may hunt in different parts of the Spine--and we know that Sloan's wife used to go there since she died in the Spine. When I say Eragon should be special somehow, I'm not talking about ancient prophecies, or playing "swordfight" with Roran like just about any kid would do when they had five minutes. I want to see a good reason why this otherwise normal kid appealed to the only female dragon in existence. Is he particularly fierce? Show me how he kills vermin on the farm, then. Or when the family runs low of meat, show him suggesting they kill the chickens that they rely on for eggs, or the horses they rely on for plowing and riding. Or is he particularly kind? Okay, then show him begging not to kill the chickens or horses--no, it will be fine, he will go and hunt or fish, and at least then the animal he kills won't have been a friend. And when he injures a deer without killing it, have him refuse to go home until he takes down that deer rather than let it suffer. Maybe he's unusually scholarly, and after Brom inspires him with stories, he sneaks away whenever he can to learn to read. Or maybe he's imaginative, and likes to carve pretty wooden figures. Or he's adventurous and uses hunting in the Spine as an excuse to go poking around places best left undisturbed. Maybe he was just extremely lonely, isolated despite the constant presence of Garrow and Roran. What I am getting at is that given his extraordinary position, Eragon ought to have had at least one trait that made him an obvious choice over all other possible options to Saphira, and that trait should have informed his character and choices throughout the series--as well as having the author actually give him agency to act on his own, rather than at the behest of others.
Now let's take a peek at Bella Swan. She's supposed to be an ordinary high school girl, maybe more attractive than average. She's brown-haired, brown-eyed, and clumsy in a way that is meant to inhibit her daily life but in action mostly just played off for humor. But somehow, she attracts the attention of a vampire going to her high school (because century-year-old immortals have nothing better to do than repeat their postsecondary education over and over again). Bella is supposed to be smart, but not the smartest. We're supposed to think she is selfless and mature, though her actions and attitudes suggest otherwise. She seems to be miserably depressed over the weather and unwilling to make friends with other students who go out of their way to be kind to her. Edward should probably also have something to set him apart, but I'll leave that aside for a moment. The only thing about Bella that Edward finds attractive, other than her delicious food scent is that he cannot read her mind. That's not enough to justify Edward's attraction, and in fact being unable to hear Bella's thoughts should probably make her more likely to wind up on the menu. This has been brought up before by many other people, but normal human beings do not date their food. The only thing that might stop me from eating a delicious-smelling piece of chocolate is if it were somehow sapient--but, to date, my chocolate hasn't spoken to me and I continue to eat it. It makes zero sense for Edward to effectively turn up his nose at delicious chocolate-flavored Bella, when he can't hear her thoughts. Unless, that is, Bella does or says some things that set her apart, not only to remind Edward that Bella is a person, but to catch his interest. Does she read books that Edward would have read? Edward probably wouldn't have been reading Jane Austen, who wasn't as popular in the Edwardian period as other novelists, and in any case wasn't a writer whose works young men would be inclined to read. Maybe Esme teaches piano lessons, and Bella was enrolled in such lessons in Phoenix. She surprises Edward with the skill and passion with which she plays her music. Or, maybe Edward overhears Bella's plans for her future (which she doesn't seem to actually have) and is enthralled--she could be planning to be a doctor who researches rare diseases, or start up a business for charity that benefits the starving and homeless. Whatever Bella was particularly notable for, it would also inform us more about Edward's character to know what he found attractive about that and why. If he fell for Bella the Musician, we would learn that piano and music aren't just hobbies for him but have deeper personal meaning. If Bella the Humanitarian or Bella the Life-Saver appeals to him, then we learn that Edward still sees humans as people and worthy of care and concern, and we also might see him reveal guilt over his past actions (eating people is bad...). So, in this case, it actually would be helpful for Bella to have one special trait outside of her power of mental silence.
I personally believe that the stakes and circumstances of a given story should inform the degree of "special" that the protagonist has. If Edward were the star of the local baseball team and not a vampire, it would be okay for Bella to ordinary. She wouldn't even need her silent brain or her delicious scent to draw him in--just be Bella, the new girl he sits next to. Maybe he was angry the first day because his best friend/previous girlfriend just moved out and now Bella is there, trying to take their place. Or maybe he has social issues and assumed everyone knew not to crowd him. But Edward's not just a normal teenager, he's a century-old vampire. For no one else to appeal to him for that amount of time, Bella needs to be special. But she isn't. If Eragon weren't a dragonrider, then his ordinary-ness would be excusable. He could still learn magic and ultimately defeat Galbatorix. In fact, Saphira plays little role beyond choosing him in the first place. Since he does appeal to Saphira, it makes sense we should be able to see something in him that might appeal to her. Just like with Edward, whatever trait appeals to Saphira should tell us more about both Saphira and Eragon.
I have no doubt all of you can come up with more and better examples of this, if you agree with it, but I'm curious what your stance is. Do you think protagonists always need to be special in some way to be memorable? Or is it fine to write an ordinary character? Or do we all need to strike a balance?
In the past--not on this community as far as I know--I have seen an argument put forth that protagonists, and likewise their antagonists, need to be extraordinary in some way. This idea, along with the desire to insert an idealized version of oneself, is likely how the "Mary Sue" came to be. You know what they say about good intentions, after all...
The case that is made is that people don't want to just read about a character who has no particularly stand-out or memorable qualities. Moreover, the argument put forth the idea that truly ordinary people would not push forward most plots. One can write about day-to-day life and stories--even in a fantasy or science fiction world--and in that context, where it doesn't matter if Jane Doe is a superhero, the ordinary protagonist can work quite well. We all have problems in our lives, and they are problems that can happen to anyone. But the argument that I once saw made was that even these day-to-day events are more interesting when our characters are in some way extraordinary. That doesn't mean they have to be the smartest, prettiest, best, or kindest, but they need to be memorable. For instance, if your character is going to solve crimes, you need to convince your reader that your character is capable of this, but you also need to write that character in a way that your readers will remember. If your character is going to save the world from the Evil Overlord, then the reader needs to be able to believe your character is skilled enough in some area to achieve that--either in leadership, charm, intelligence, combat--whatever your protagonist needs to win.
This also goes back to another conversation I had in the comm just recently. It is okay to have an extraordinary character. I am perfectly fine with your character being sexy and charming and skilled in a dozen ways, if you can write that character well. I'm going to have a better time believing it if people don't fawn over them "just because," and not everyone is either jealous or loves them. I'll also buy into it better if he or she has some character flaws, especially if they make sense for that character's personality and backstory. You don't have to hide that your character is extraordinary behind an ordinary facade. In fact, if you do, people are going to notice, and in some cases, it would be better to write someone who is extraordinary.
"But wait, Ghost, are you saying we should write Sues?"
... Well, no. But let's take a look at a couple of this comm's "favorites" for a moment.
Eragon is supposed to begin as an ordinary farm boy. Then he proceeds to basically accomplish nothing at all over the course of around a year or two of in-story time, while others do all the work. The writer tries to make him extraordinary through Saphira and the powers he gains, but it's too late. There is and was nothing special about Eragon, other than his incapacity for empathy later on. The problem is that Eragon needs to be extraordinary somehow. He's the first of a new order of Riders. He is the one person Saphira chose as her rider out of possible thousands. And it's okay that he's a farmboy, but there needs to be more to this than "He's Brom's son," and "He's the only guy who hunts in the Spine." The former could be anyone, and the latter may not be true. We can be fairly certain there are other towns and villages along the Spine--meaning people from other towns may hunt in different parts of the Spine--and we know that Sloan's wife used to go there since she died in the Spine. When I say Eragon should be special somehow, I'm not talking about ancient prophecies, or playing "swordfight" with Roran like just about any kid would do when they had five minutes. I want to see a good reason why this otherwise normal kid appealed to the only female dragon in existence. Is he particularly fierce? Show me how he kills vermin on the farm, then. Or when the family runs low of meat, show him suggesting they kill the chickens that they rely on for eggs, or the horses they rely on for plowing and riding. Or is he particularly kind? Okay, then show him begging not to kill the chickens or horses--no, it will be fine, he will go and hunt or fish, and at least then the animal he kills won't have been a friend. And when he injures a deer without killing it, have him refuse to go home until he takes down that deer rather than let it suffer. Maybe he's unusually scholarly, and after Brom inspires him with stories, he sneaks away whenever he can to learn to read. Or maybe he's imaginative, and likes to carve pretty wooden figures. Or he's adventurous and uses hunting in the Spine as an excuse to go poking around places best left undisturbed. Maybe he was just extremely lonely, isolated despite the constant presence of Garrow and Roran. What I am getting at is that given his extraordinary position, Eragon ought to have had at least one trait that made him an obvious choice over all other possible options to Saphira, and that trait should have informed his character and choices throughout the series--as well as having the author actually give him agency to act on his own, rather than at the behest of others.
Now let's take a peek at Bella Swan. She's supposed to be an ordinary high school girl, maybe more attractive than average. She's brown-haired, brown-eyed, and clumsy in a way that is meant to inhibit her daily life but in action mostly just played off for humor. But somehow, she attracts the attention of a vampire going to her high school (because century-year-old immortals have nothing better to do than repeat their postsecondary education over and over again). Bella is supposed to be smart, but not the smartest. We're supposed to think she is selfless and mature, though her actions and attitudes suggest otherwise. She seems to be miserably depressed over the weather and unwilling to make friends with other students who go out of their way to be kind to her. Edward should probably also have something to set him apart, but I'll leave that aside for a moment. The only thing about Bella that Edward finds attractive, other than her delicious food scent is that he cannot read her mind. That's not enough to justify Edward's attraction, and in fact being unable to hear Bella's thoughts should probably make her more likely to wind up on the menu. This has been brought up before by many other people, but normal human beings do not date their food. The only thing that might stop me from eating a delicious-smelling piece of chocolate is if it were somehow sapient--but, to date, my chocolate hasn't spoken to me and I continue to eat it. It makes zero sense for Edward to effectively turn up his nose at delicious chocolate-flavored Bella, when he can't hear her thoughts. Unless, that is, Bella does or says some things that set her apart, not only to remind Edward that Bella is a person, but to catch his interest. Does she read books that Edward would have read? Edward probably wouldn't have been reading Jane Austen, who wasn't as popular in the Edwardian period as other novelists, and in any case wasn't a writer whose works young men would be inclined to read. Maybe Esme teaches piano lessons, and Bella was enrolled in such lessons in Phoenix. She surprises Edward with the skill and passion with which she plays her music. Or, maybe Edward overhears Bella's plans for her future (which she doesn't seem to actually have) and is enthralled--she could be planning to be a doctor who researches rare diseases, or start up a business for charity that benefits the starving and homeless. Whatever Bella was particularly notable for, it would also inform us more about Edward's character to know what he found attractive about that and why. If he fell for Bella the Musician, we would learn that piano and music aren't just hobbies for him but have deeper personal meaning. If Bella the Humanitarian or Bella the Life-Saver appeals to him, then we learn that Edward still sees humans as people and worthy of care and concern, and we also might see him reveal guilt over his past actions (eating people is bad...). So, in this case, it actually would be helpful for Bella to have one special trait outside of her power of mental silence.
I personally believe that the stakes and circumstances of a given story should inform the degree of "special" that the protagonist has. If Edward were the star of the local baseball team and not a vampire, it would be okay for Bella to ordinary. She wouldn't even need her silent brain or her delicious scent to draw him in--just be Bella, the new girl he sits next to. Maybe he was angry the first day because his best friend/previous girlfriend just moved out and now Bella is there, trying to take their place. Or maybe he has social issues and assumed everyone knew not to crowd him. But Edward's not just a normal teenager, he's a century-old vampire. For no one else to appeal to him for that amount of time, Bella needs to be special. But she isn't. If Eragon weren't a dragonrider, then his ordinary-ness would be excusable. He could still learn magic and ultimately defeat Galbatorix. In fact, Saphira plays little role beyond choosing him in the first place. Since he does appeal to Saphira, it makes sense we should be able to see something in him that might appeal to her. Just like with Edward, whatever trait appeals to Saphira should tell us more about both Saphira and Eragon.
I have no doubt all of you can come up with more and better examples of this, if you agree with it, but I'm curious what your stance is. Do you think protagonists always need to be special in some way to be memorable? Or is it fine to write an ordinary character? Or do we all need to strike a balance?