# Character forming or abusive?



## TShaw (Apr 11, 2009)

Iâ€™ve gotten several comments in the past and still more recently about how much hardship characters go through. Now, we should all know part of a characterâ€™s growth requires some sort of testing and hardship but Iâ€™m beginning to wonder if I tend to go too far.

In my own defense Iâ€™ve always thought that any test of trial give an equal reward or benefit. If your character is going to end the story stronger and better than when they started theyâ€™ll have to come through something challenging to test their mettle. Or maybe itâ€™s just the stories I tend to write.

So the question has to be at what point are you just being too harsh? And how wicked should their adversaries be allowed to be toward them through the course of the story?


----------



## RedNumberIX (Apr 11, 2009)

I've always lived with the belief that if there is a God he's a writer. And as miniature Gods of our own tiny worlds, I think it's important to ask, 'how much more can we put our characters through?'

I've had to break myself out of a hard habit. I used to have in falling in love with a particular character and keeping them from doing things that hurt my perceptions of them. However, I found that doing this made for pretty predictable stories and some pretty lame conflicts

The only breaking point for the trials and tribulations of a character (which is supposedly the only part of the story people care about) is the limit to which an audience will believe them. I was always taught that the story ends when the conflict is resolved.


----------



## Attaman (Apr 11, 2009)

Too harsh is purposely rigging things against them without a plausible excuse.  If you can write a good explanation as to why things are so harsh, go for it.  But if it basically boils down to "You, suffer.  Now." then it isn't that much fun to read (unless going for slapstick humor).

As for their adversaries wickedness, just keep it in-character.  There are notably sadistic people, but going out of the way to kick the dog just makes it look like villain's character is unimportant to you.

Just remember:  Main characters dying is acceptable, and they need not be villains or heroic deaths.  Not saying that people should be dropping left and right, but it adds a sense that the characters could actually be at risk for a change.


----------



## duroc (Apr 11, 2009)

TShaw said:


> Iâ€™ve gotten several comments in the past and still more recently about how much hardship characters go through.



I'm gonna be a little biased because I like your characters, and I _ultimately_(key word here) want to see good things happen to them.  To me, character abuse would be if nothing good ever happened to the character and it always seemed like a downward slope.  But then again, if that were the case, the story would probably bore the reader and they'd lose interest.  

In my opinion, a good plot should have ups and downs for the characters.  And I think you did a good job with that in your Timothy stories by bringing in Enzo.  

I think the reason we comment on the hardship of your characters is because we like you and want to give you a bad time.  That, and to encourage you to write more.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Apr 11, 2009)

Attaman and Duroc pretty much said what I was thinking.  
But I will add as sort of a side-note that I really hate it in, say, cartoons or kids' movies, when the main villain, who obviously detests the main character to the point of absurdity, finally ends up getting his hands on him, and he just, like, puts him in a cage or something and walks away, allowing him to escape.  I mean, if I hated someone that much and found myself in that situation, I'd just shoot the little twerp and be done with it.  But of course you can't do that if you want the story to go on.
It's just another example of making sure that the hardship the character goes through is a)really a hardship, and b)has a point other than hardship for hardship's sake.  People notice when you try a cheap trick, and when they do notice it totally ruins your credibility.  So just keep focused on what is and is not necessary to the story, and I think it will be just fine.  Just like those two above me pointed out.  And avoid capture scenes if the villain hates the main character's guts and has been foiled by him numerous times in the past.


----------



## TakeWalker (Apr 11, 2009)

LEAVE POOR TIMOTHY ALONE! ;_;

Seriously, though, there is a certain point at which extended or constant hardship become character torture. I think, as has already been said, there needs to be a purpose for the hardship, not just as an obstacle to get to the next obstacle, or a way to extend or add drama to a story. The character should develop obviously, even if it takes a few hardships. I'm less confident in saying that there should be some cases in which your protagonist can 'win'. I know I've given up on series wherein the main character just keeps getting his ass handed to him, with no end in sight, because it doesn't feel like he'll ever win. Looking at your stories in particular, I think you've got no worries by this point. You're headed in the right direction, it just took a while for that light to shine through all the things he's gone throughOH GOD WHY DID YOU HAVE TO DO THAT TO HIM HE WAS SO HAPPY AND INNOCENT ;_____;


----------



## TShaw (Apr 19, 2009)

Thanks to all who replied. I kind of thought I was on the right track but just wanted to be sure I hadnâ€™t driven over the edge.

Oh, and MLR donâ€™t get me started on characters in cartoons and movies. Although the thought does give me a bit of motivation to come up with a snarky story to rub it in everyoneâ€™s face with that kind of expectation.  Might actually be fun.


----------

