Does every story need a good character?

[RJM Corbet]

Books about Hitler and Stalin sell pretty well?
It's so long since I read the GAP series, but I remember getting totally involved in the story. The situation, the characters became real to me, although of course I knew I was reading a book. It's like when a bad actor comes on -- acting. Suddenly you withdraw, you're not involved, you become aware that you're watching an actor, in a studio set, and it kills the movie.
I enjoyed GAP tremendously, but to be honest, in the end I had a problem with the GAP books getting thicker and thicker. I felt that Donaldson was padding it out, because at such a stage of success, his editors were afraid to interfere? Someone told me that some of those writers are paid by the word. Human nature takes over, more words, more bucks. I don't know if it's true, but it's sad if it is. The first GAP book was tight and quite thin. I couldn't wait for the next one. But the last one, I found myself skimming a lot.
'The Grapes of Wrath' by John Steinbeck is quite a thick book, but you can't skim it, you have to go back and catch up if you do -- every word has its place. And it's the characters you care about, how they deal with the situations, although it's a story about the Great Depression, etc. 'Cannery Row' is quite a thin book -- but who could ever forget 'Doc' and his beer milkshake.
I know I'm being retro I have a problem with these big, thick books, just because people want thick books, and successful writers running away from their editors. 'Dune' was great, and quite thick, but by 'God, Emperor of Dune' -- I put it down half-way through. It was boring. Just a cash cow. A lot of great literature is thin.
I know I've gone completely off the point here though.
GAP is very good. Donaldson is very good. He involves the reader completely in the story. But even someone like Stephan Donaldson needs an editor ...

 

[STING]

I thought I could get away with the suspense I am creating and the tension I am building between the two evil characters but if the risk is as big as....

It's an interesting idea having a protagonist and an antagonist who are equally evil, but I have to say that there is a very real chance that it will backfire.

... there is a point at which nobody is worth saving at all, and the story may become boring pretty quickly after that.

...this, I might as well find ways to eliminate that risk. Some of these ways could be...

But then the "good guys" don't have to be witless do-gooders: take Sherlock Holmes for instance.

It doesn't have to be anything world-shattering - it just has to feel unfair, and the reader's natural desire for justice will do the rest.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Someone told me that some of those writers are paid by the word. Human nature takes over, more words, more bucks. I don't know if it's true, but it's sad if it is.

Somebody misinformed you. In short fiction appearing in magazines and anthologies writers get paid by the word. For novels, it's been a long, long time since that was the practice. Writers get paid royalties based on the cover price of the book. A longer book has a higher price, but not in direct proportion to the number of words.

But, yes, writers who are very successful can become resistant to editing and they are able to get away with it because the publishing companies know that the books will sell anyway. To spend months haggling back and forth over changes to the book does the publisher no good, since publishing sequels in a timely manner leads to higher sales.

 

[RJM Corbet]

Thank you

 

[Anne Martin]

GAP is very good. Donaldson is very good. He involves the reader completely in the story. But even someone like Stephan Donaldson needs an editor ...

Compared to some books I've read (e.g. Niffenegger, The Time Traveler's Wife), the Gap (so far) is reasonably well edited. Established authors often have their own editors, ones they have worked with over many years, and in whom they trust. Stephen King is certainly one, and I suspect Donaldson is another. In fact, in the introduction to Daughter of Regals, he credits an editor for one of the stories (it was dedicated to him). Authors who write and re-write fastidiously (there are at least 7 versions of The Real Story, apparently), need an editor to find all the things they missed. I find that rewriting invariably introduces errors and inconsistencies that a fresh eye would pick up.

In SFF publishers seem to like long right now. Book one (The Real Story, at 50k-55k) was a prologue expanded from a novella to introduce the series. Book two is roughly 160K words. I'm hearing 120K-180K as the target length for SFF, with a willingness to shave down to 100k. I confess that I prefer shorter novels, too.

 

[STING]

Authors who write and re-write fastidiously (there are at least 7 versions of The Real Story, apparently)....

I keep remembering that Hemingway wrote the last chapter of his Farewell to Arms 39 times.

In SFF publishers seem to like long right now. I'm hearing 120K-180K as the target length for SFF

Wonder why this obsession with length is more pronounced in SFF.

I confess that I prefer shorter novels...

Even Teresa has been saying she does (though she writes thick books). I like to read short stuff which I can finish reading in two or three hours. I notice that many members of these forums have said the same. But readers by and large seem to prefer longer stories of any genre ...novels...at least 80k, though naturally they won't talk in terms of word counts. I can't fathom why. I would have thought these days when everybody is "busy" short stories or novellas would be more popular. It continues to fox me.

 

[Anne Martin]

I find it increasingly difficult to find markets for novellas, especially short ones (under 40K). I once queried a publisher who supposedly published only novellas (in chapbooks or anthologies). I received no reply from them or their parent publisher (upon further inquiry). Another has closed their submissions.

I think I'll have to self-publish them, unfortunately, which means I'm likely to sell only a handful of copies. I'm considering publishing one with a set of short stories to see what happens.

Anyway, we're digressing from the topic. My novella (Intolerance) has a "good" protagonist, who slowly discovers what she is, and doesn't like it. She's not evil, but she has an unfortunate effect on people she comes in contact with. (They turn into feral beasts, and kill themselves when she rejects their advances. It still needs a major revision.)

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Even Teresa has been saying she does (though she writes thick books).

I like short books and long books. Some of my favorite writers never write anything very long, but that suits the stories they are telling, and they're writers who can imply whole worlds of meaning in a few words (although they can write lengthy and gorgeous descriptions when called for).

On the other hand, if I love the world and the characters, the plot is well executed and the prose beautiful, then I'm happy to stay immersed in that world for however long the book may be.

Sometimes, though, even when I like a book quite well, I do feel like there may be some padding. Maybe this is self-indulgence, or writing to fit the market, or maybe it's because the contract said 130,000 words and the writer thinks the publisher won't accept it at 110,000.

Then, too, when you write the book and you put in a lot of stuff that you absolutely love at the time, I imagine it would be hard to recognize that some of that needs to be taken out, if your fans are deifying you and your editor doesn't push.

The GAP books weren't well received, but I understood that to be because the books were so relentlessly grim and depressing that even readers who had loved his previous work found them hard to get through. I wondered if that would be the case when I read an interview beforehand during which he basically said he'd had enough of writing light-hearted fare like the Thomas Covenant books, and his brand new series would be dark and gritty.

 

[Anne Martin]

The GAP books weren't well received, but I understood that to be because the books were so relentlessly grim and depressing that even readers who had loved his previous work found them hard to get through. I wondered if that would be the case when I read an interview beforehand during which he basically said he'd had enough of writing light-hearted fare like the Thomas Covenant books, and his brand new series would be dark and gritty.

Actually, I thought the Thomas Covenant books WERE relentlessly grim and depressing, but they were different than anything I had read at the time. The set in between weren't ... and I thought the Second Chronicles tiresome (but I'm 20 years older now - eek! Should I admit that?), and never made it through the (very long) first book.

I've also attempted to read Jacqueline Carey's Kushiel's Dart, and it was only just starting to become interesting 250 pages in (of 1015!). I stopped, worrying that I might find another 200+ pages of infodump later in the book. Is the protagonist good? She's an adept submissive and a spy. That doesn't exactly sound that good to me, but some people love those books so much that they've had intertwined roses tattooed up their backs. (Her books definitely could use some editing/cutting.)

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Actually, I thought the Thomas Covenant books WERE relentlessly grim and depressing

Hence my bemusement when he said that he was ready to move on from those to something dark.

 

[Brian G Turner]

A reference was made earlier to maintaining reader empathy with a character by arranging for him to be persecuted by persons who operate out of motiveless malice.

Oh, I didn't mean motiveless - but fiction in general runs on having malicious characters trip up protagonists - how well the writer constructs the motive for these actions is another thing.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

I think your protagonist doesn't necessarily have to be good, but evil's a stretch. Most people want to empathise with the protagonist in some way, if he's detestible why would they care if he wins or loses? You could help his appeal maybe by making him a victim of some past terrible event that made him that way, giving him humour - people will forgive a lot for someone who's funny, or possibly throwing some justice in his path so that while he's doing the thing for the wrong reason he's still doing something good.

Oh and about the Gap series, I couldn't read it and I've read everything else of Stephen Donaldsons. It was dark and gritty yes, but ultimately too painful. Thomas Covenant was good, because it was beautiful and poignant and you could understand him as a tragic figure not trying to be a hero but still trying to do right, and of course the land was the great redeemer of the books. But you could see him going darker when he did the Mordant's need books, and it was hard to enjoy them as the characters got coated with pain. Then came the Gap.

Cheers.

 

[MstrTal]

I liked "MogWorld" by Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw. His Protagonist is a free willed video game AI NPC who discovers that he is in a MMORPG. Before this discovery he spends a good part of the book trying to commit suicide, dropping Hero's in acid pools or rat pits and generally doing what any good undead minion does. In fact I think the best part of the book is when he declares that he doesn't want to be a hero but a protagonist.

 

[Tragedy]

OP; I would love to read what you are writing based on your description alone. Whilst I agree with what alot of people here are saying (people want to be involved with a protagonist), I do not like being tethered to a character and being forced to like them.

You can still achieve your goal without having to bend the reader to pick the "lesser" evil. It is more important to humanize your characters more than anything else. Yes they may commit atrocious acts, but they are still human. For example, I never in my life felt that could ever see Hitler as anything other than a monster - but after watching "Der Untergang" (a great film by the way), I actually came to see that despite his monstrous crimes against humanity, Hitler was just human.

So really, it comes down to character creation; perhaps you could have an utterly incompetent, self-righteous character whose rule leads to disaster, and the other one is hard working, and caring character, but malicious and extreme. Two characters you can hate, and two characters you can sympathize with.

Also, dont forget that supporting characters can carry a story. You could make a lovable cast that your audience becomes invested in. And again, they need not be "good guys".

Also, I just want to add a piece of advice that seems to be a universal rule amongst authors (or at least the ones I talked to anyway) - write the story for you. There are many tips and tricks to making your story into a good story (like the one I saw earlier in this thread, introduce the protagonist first so your audience instantly clicks), but it is still your story.

Best of luck to you. It sounds like a great story and I would purchase it right now if I had the chance, simply based on what you stated thusfar.