Making Characters Suffer: What's That All About?

It is true. Cheever's work did bring home that ‘life is never a box of chocolates. And if it is, it’s probably going to find a way to poison you anyway’. We seem to be hooked with the trials and tribulations of a character’s life; their flaws and how they deal with situations gives them character (see what I did there? Anybody?). After all, it’s what makes them relatable, more like ‘us’. So is it wrong to make them suffer like we do?

 

I seem to almost always convey some type of negativity in my creative pieces, whether it’s intentional or not, it finds a way to creep under the floorboards. Actually, I especially do it in children’s stories, not to scare them, but to simply question; what would you do?’ It is hardly surprising that Cheever, too, has ghastly ghouls scratching at the forefront. If we take into consideration that he relied heavily on alcohol, and had a troublesome time ‘accepting who he may have been’, it may come as no surprise that the majority of his work isn’t children riding unicorns on a rainbow. Quite a proportion of Dickinson’s work was somewhat similar.

 

It could be that they are trying to guide and teach us the only way they know how, similar to what I do myself. A part of a quote from Al Alvarez states: “you become obsessed with the beloved's whole take on life... you want to be him”. The reality is that you probably don’t.   

Should a writer be 'invisible'?

After spending weeks, months, sometimes years trying to perfect stories, why should we be invisible? It seems only fair that if a person has put their time amd energy into something, they should get rewards in return. However we may need to look at this from an audience’s point of view. Personally, if I am interested in a film (I know, different topic) that is an adaptation of a book, having the author lingering around it claiming that ‘it’s their baby’ doesn’t really do it for me.
 

If we take '50 Shades of Grey’ as an example, the mere thought of E L James in the background, soaking up everything she can get is enough in itself for me to throw in the towel before I’ve even glanced at the cover. With this, and the news stories of her suing individuals for copyright when the book was originally a fan fiction of Twilight, well, is quite frankly, laughable. To me, it's quite off-putting as it reeks of desperation. Perhaps it is beneficial for the author to take to the side-lines. This isn’t to suggest that everyone should. J K Rowling did it quite respectfully with the Harry Potter series. Others maybe just need to know their place, in a sense. That’s not what being an author is about after all.

Social/Political Aspects VS The Quality of Writing

I'm a bit on the fence about this one; a bundle of mixed emotions. A part of me wants to embrace the topic of narrative, whilst the other wants to put the crystal into DiCaprio's pocket and watch them both go under the icy surface, never to be seen again.

I am almost certain that this has to do with what I have read in the past year or so. If somebody was to suggest this 12 months ago, they may have obtained a different, more direct response. 

Yes, in a sense, being able to write as well as one can will, of course, keep the reader more loyal. I'm sure that there have been many a novel when the plot itself was wonderfully planned out, spoiled by a continuous load of tedious dribble that followed page after page. 

W.Clement Stone was once quoted as saying that: "you are a product of your environment". With this in mind perhaps social and political aspects of the environment we are raised in, along with our current environment, does have an impact on our personal outlook of the world. If we were to take a child from Iraq, and one from Australia, they would each almost certainly have a different story to tell. Having read 'Private Peaceful' by Michael Morpurgo, as someone who is living in a country still at war, and has a brother-in-law who works as an infantry soldier for the British Army, it hit close to home. 

Morpurgo has in the past lived on the military base at Sandhurst, and had his family involved in wars.  In effect, other works including War Horse and Kensuke's Kingdom both illustrate a common theme of survival in hostile environments.  If that doesn't tell you something, I don't know what will. In addition to this, Dickinson wrote a number of Civil War poetry; poems used to express herself, and others; poems that would never have had a pen put to paper if it wasn't for her political environment in which she lived.

Go figure. 

Does a protagonist who has flaws distract readers from the narrative itself?

Er, it's called a character arc, people!

But seriously, does it?

Off the top of my head, I've written stories about a detective who has hallucinations and may or may not be Jack the goddamn Ripper; a teenage love-triangle with homosexual tendencies; and poems about soldiers leaving behind loved ones, and a number of other delusional things. Is there a part of me in some of these? Of course. But hey, everyone loves an underdog! I would hope that they build character and make them more interesting for the audience (whomever may read it), rather than make them less lovable and life-like. Life is supposed to be about the good and the bad, the highs and the lows which form our outlook on situations. Either this or you’re taking away their very core of being remotely realistic.

People need role models; people need the truth. I wouldn't be where I am now without my downfalls, flaws and all. Cheever for example, makes ‘a lot’ of references to alcohol, no matter how subtle or obvious (take your pick). His alcoholism in his personal life, however, does not have a direct effect on his work. Taking ‘Swimmer’ as an example, it may have the underlining of his alcohol usage, but it doesn't stop it from becoming a well-known and well written story.

Actually, come to think of it, Emily Dickinson’s ‘Over the Fence’ doesn't make me love the protagonist any less just because she’s curious about her womanhood.

Protagonist definition via http://dictionary.reference.com

   

Why do writers have a writing style, and is it unique to them?

After dipping into the works of John Cheever, I think it’s safe to say that he has a style all of his own (coined the 'New Yorker Style' – which is coincidentally where he died). His themes of good versus evil; light versus dark, might actually show a lot about how conditions were in New York in the period in which he was there. It was certainly an eventful time to be there with all of the economical and social changes that were happening. But then I started to wonder; do I even have a writing style, and if not, why not?

Sure, in my first year of university, I played it safe. I went about writing creative pieces as best as I could, whilst making my critical essays sound like I was possibly related to the queen (okay, maybe not THAT far). However I’m in my second year now, and I’m still not entirely sure if I have one. Maybe it’s just that I can’t see it and others can, after all, you’re not conscious about how you appear to others around you, are you? So why would you be when writing? If somebody was to ask me to name my five best personality traits, I’m not sure it would align with other peoples’ opinions.

That’s not to say that I won’t end up having a writing style (hopefully – albeit probably one that makes people want to jump off of a bridge FOR me), but I think that really depends on the writer.