I know at this point in my blogging career, readers have probably lost count of the number of things I’ve listed as literary pet peeves, but let me add this one: excessively quirky characters.
You know what I’m talking about:
Her name is Calliope and she’s a welder by day, an assassin by night. Her assassin’s weapon of choice? A spear gun! The darts of which have been dipped in radioactive curare! (Can curare be radioactive? I’ve never heard of that.) She loves mah-jongg, cranberry gelato, and dyes her hair a different color each day (Really? How does she have time to do that with all the assassinating and welding she’s doing?) She's on a mission to unearth the truth about her missing parents, both of whom were circus freaks/CPAs. (So they can, like, do my taxes while swallowing flaming swords or something? I'd actually pay extra for that, assuming they could get me a decent refund.)
Come on.
I think the reason for these sorts of over-the-top characterizations is that we authors are trying to avoid making obvious choices about what characters should be or act like.
I’m sympathetic. I am. Nobody likes to feel like they’re trotting out clichés at every turn. There have been many times I’ve taken out references or changed direction plot-wise because I decided I was being too obvious (read: lazy) in my narrative choices.
So, yeah, obviously one should avoid being too obvious. But let’s not swing too far in the opposite direction either. I’m sure we can all count on one finger the number of people we know who are internationally-sought-after computer hackers and also accomplished flamenco dancers.
Have you ever created something—a plot twist, a relationship, a setting—and thought, “Hmm. No, that’s far too obvious.” What did you do about it?
And since no one says the word, “Obviously,” like Alan Rickman, I leave you with this:
(Reminder: To leave a comment, first click on the post title.
The comment box will then come up at the bottom.)
@AngelinaCHansen · 702 weeks ago
KLM 70p · 702 weeks ago
christine danek · 702 weeks ago
KLM 70p · 702 weeks ago
Revisions are indeed the blackest of black holes. You're lucky you're even allowed out into the daylight while you're working on them.
sierragodfrey 76p · 702 weeks ago
My first chapter had some obviosity in it, but I was blind to it. That's why I find trusted and clever critique partners (ahem cough).
KLM 70p · 701 weeks ago
I've been struggling with this on my WiP. Sigh.
Sophia Chang · 702 weeks ago
KLM 70p · 701 weeks ago
And, yes, I imagine L.A. is the capital of needless, inexplicable quirkiness.
Jeigh · 701 weeks ago
KLM 70p · 701 weeks ago
Dianne Salerni · 701 weeks ago
I don't want to genre-bash, but I think one place where we see a lot of over-done quirkiness is in the cozy mysteries. I used to read a lot of those, say about 10 or 12 years ago, but I got pretty tired of just the thing you're talking about. Either it works (Stephanie Plum) -- or it just plain falls flat. I
KLM 70p · 701 weeks ago
Why not have a character who's motivated by the desire to turn her ex-lovers or anyone who crosses her into life-size garden gnomes?
Lola Sharp · 701 weeks ago
I think it does depend on the genre and setting. And how well an author can pull quirky off. Clearly a fantasy is different than a contemporary or literary piece.
Also, I like the name Calliope. :)
Have a lovely weekend,
Lola
unsweptstone 27p · 701 weeks ago