This summer, while looking through my library for books on
Melanie’s summer reading list, I came across this intriguing cover.
Anyway, the plot is this: ordinary village girl Aggie is
hired to be a companion to the ward of the owner of Murkmere. But mysterious Leah cares more for the company of
swans than humans. As Aggie spends more time at the manor, she is drawn deeper
into the secrets of her new mistress and Murkmere’s tragic history.
The book is very Gothic in tone: empty, forbidding manor;
mysterious, injured guardian; flighty, wild daughter. But I didn’t really enjoy
the novel, because the narrator of the book utterly frustrated me. Aggie was fearful,
hesitant, superstitious, and almost completely lacking in personality. There
was a token attempt at the end to give her a backstory, but to be honest, I don’t
remember anything about it – though I remember Leah’s story quite clearly. In
the end, it seemed like Aggie was a placeholder, a witness there so that the
readers could go through these strange events.
After reading Murkmere, I came to realize that this is a fairly
frequent situation in literature – and one that has always bothered me. I call
them witness characters, but they’re often referred to as the “Everyman”
character. The idea is that the reader thinks, if this ordinary character can
do things, so can I. But they also risk being boring, empty slates. Some famous
examples of Everyman characters are Arthur Dent from Hitchhiker’s Guide to the
Galaxy, Dr. Watson from Sherlock Holmes (the original books), and Frodo (Everyhobbit?)
from Lord of the Rings (and Bilbo, for that matter).
But it seems sometime that the attempt to make the character
relatable can go too far. A frequent criticism of Bella in Twilight is that she
is completely a blank slate, apparently in order to make it easier for readers
to imagine themselves as her. I don’t think it has to be so extreme. Aggie from
Murkmere is even more extreme in her own way. She is described, but she herself
has so little stake in the story that she might as well not be there. Here are
some questions I think it’s important to ask when building relatable
characters.
What role does your
character have? And what’s at stake?
One of the problems with Aggie in Murkmere is that she had
very little at stake. Through most of the book, it seems like the worst she
could do is lose her job. And… go back to live with her aunt. Who is apparently
well off. There are vague threats to her
life and accusations of blasphemy, but though those troubled her greatly at first, the tension of that diminished rather quickly.
Take Frodo as a contrast. He’s not only putting his life at
risk, he has the most important job in the Fellowship. And not only is his life
at risk, but also his sanity (both his personal world and his physical world!)
What does ordinary
mean?
Ordinary does not mean boring. Ordinary does not mean
ineffective. In my view, all ordinary means is starting out powerless, and
succeeding despite that. If you make your character too powerless, too
frightened, you risk the reader getting frustrated. In my opinion, the idea is
to produce an ordinary character that makes the reader want to be better. Do
that right, and it can be very powerful.
Are you writing the
right character?
Okay, so you’ve got this awesome idea for an eccentric
character. This character is the one who takes up all your mind and pages and
pages of notes. So… why is this person not your main character?
What would Murkmere
have been like if it had been told from Leah’s perspective? Sure, there would
be a couple of mysteries the author couldn’t have held over us, but imagine
being in the head of a girl who can understand swans, whose loneliness and isolation might have resonated just fine with readers, even if they didn't want to live with swans. The witness character can be a powerful voice if handled right, but I think it's important for authors to go with the character who speaks most clearly to them.
That being said, Kait (the main character in my next novel, Swallowed the Moon), is pretty much an everyman (everywoman?). What do you do to keep your characters ordinary - and more?
Great post!! And I agree with your definition of ordinary, and I do love stories that have the everyman-type characters but the vast majority of the time, the story really needs to be theirs and they definitely need higher stakes than getting fired. :)
ReplyDeleteThese are excellent questions to consider when choosing a MC.