Well, I've been discussing a hell of a lot of music lately and this is drifting a little from the original purpose of this blog, which is to discuss books.
The main problem is that not only have I not read a book that has enraged me as much as the book that started this blog; I don't think another such book exists. That is not to say that I haven't read any books that irritate me (such as some real bullshit from Lenin's "What Is To Be Done?" And I'm a Socialist!). I just haven't read anything that bad in comparison. So what I will talk about is some things from literature that I find interesting. Just like with my music reviews, I have no qualifications. I am not a published author in any definition of the term, and most of the things I discuss are probably better covered on TV Tropes or even Wikipedia. Anyway, what has a little irrelevance ever done to dissuade me?
The concept I want to look at today is that of 2D or "flat" characters. These are characters which resort to stereotypes for definition, having few defining characteristics, normally being a bit character, with no large part in the story. Now, the common response to this is to think "lazy writer" or something of the sort, and until I actually gave the matter some thought, I would have agreed. What has to be remembered, however, is that the author is clearly treating reader investment as a finite resource. Why on earth would they bother trying to make us care about a character only in the story for plot purposes? Would that make reading the story a better experience? Having the reader form some kind of attachment to a character only for them to leave the book completely? Honestly, it makes no sense. Some authors attempt to make us form emotional connections with a character they are planning on killing off at the very start of the book so as to make us invested in the entire plot. This is an absolute waste. Do it Christie style. They find a corpse. Done.
The mention of Agatha Christie brings up another aspect of 2D characters: the use of stereotype. To avoid the somewhat tedious task of creating and fleshing out complete characters for every story she wrote, Christie often would rely on stereotype to create the characters or her. Just think about it. Old rich guy. Ageing actress. Daughter or either. Family man. Mother. Doctor. All of these characters have a million connotations for us and Christie relies on these to make her characters seem much more fleshed-out than they really are. It's a brilliant strategy, especially when you see just how successful Christie has been.
Moving on, another major issue is that many minor 2D characters have a very interesting trait. Characters with unique and interesting qualities quickly become the stand-out parts of books that feature them. What many authors seem to do is to give these qualities to characters with no large role in the story. This is a bad idea. The logic seems to be that they just have to come up with the concept. They don't have to explain how it happened or the ins and outs of it. The best example to give (as I feel this might be a little vague) is that of Ruth Connors. Ruth Connors is a character taken from the rather dull and dreary "The Lovely Bones" by Alice Sebold. The plot of the story is a teen girl is killed and refuses to go to heaven to view her family doing...nothing, really. The main characters are under developed and often unlikeable, and the religious subtext is both irritatingly blatant and undeveloped. Ruth Connors is a minor character (I'd say she was plot relevant, but as I still cannot quite grasp the plot, I doubt this is true), who is the last to see the protagonist before she is murdered. After this incident, Ruth can see dead people (I think. Again, vague and poorly explained seem to be Sebold's calling cards). Yeah. You have a character who can see ghosts. Besides channelling the protagonist for a brief period so she can shag someone, she plays no real role. Just...why? Having a fascinating character and putting her on the sidelines is a complete waste of both our time and investment. This is a pretty widespread act and it really just pisses me off.
Giving an otherwise normal individual a unique trait is hardly a new concept for fiction, but normally this character becomes the focus and the cause and effects of the trait is explored in some depth. An example (and I am aware I'm getting slightly off topic) is the fantastic John Marsden series' "Tomorrow When The War Began" and "The Ellie Chronicles". Of course, both of these series are young adult fiction, but a disturbingly large of my references are. I can't even blame a well-spent youth. I've read a disturbingly large amount of these books recently. Now, the plot of the series, in brief, is that Ellie and a group of her friends (16ish years old) go camping off the beaten track, cutting themselves off from the world. Upon returning, they find Australia invaded by (country name removed to avoid racist undertones). They initially attempt to just survive, but begin to strike back in little ways. In the Ellie Chronicles, the war is over and Ellie is attempting to deal with living a normal life again. Both fantastic series, but the point I'm attempting to make is that the unique trait of Ellie is that she is a normal, middle-class teen in a first-world country (that's right, Australia just happens to be in the First World) who ends up fighting as a child soldier. I could (and probably will) talk about this book at length, but the point is that the unique trait becomes the focus of the story, and the otherwise ordinary protagonist explores how this effects them and changes other aspects of their life.
Overall, the concept of 2D characters is one of near necessity, as they save time, space, investment, thought and description. They can, however, be easily misused, given unnecessary traits to imitate depth of character, or used as tantalizing proof that the author can come up with interesting story ideas. They just don't feel like doing it right now.
Feedback always welcome, especially from those who feel they have something to add to the discussion.
H. Rourke
No comments:
Post a Comment