# Overpowered Characters



## Chanticleer (Jan 17, 2009)

Hi, I'm not usually one to rant against a writing trend, but I feel compelled to speak up on this one.

It seems that in every other story I read on FA there is some gigantic uber-powered character who completely wipes the floor with everyone else in the story. I wouldn't mind seeing a character like that once in a blue moon, but after a while they just start getting really repetitive and boring.

Maybe it's just my personal problem. I've always favored Batman to Superman. I've always rooted for the flawed, downtrodden hero who does his best and isn't usually on top; the kind that has to resort to wits and friends and make sacrifices to win the day.

Does anyone else feel this way? Are overpowered characters becoming a problem?


----------



## Sernion (Jan 17, 2009)

I don't know if they're really becoming a "problem", but I agree that those kind of characters make the story awfully boring.


----------



## duroc (Jan 17, 2009)

I agree, a flawed character is usually much more effective than an all-powerful one.  Characters that have problems and make mistakes are more believable, and they're easier for the reader to relate too.  But it really depends on what you're trying to write.  I think an overpowered character can be a useful tool _if_ done properly.  If you have, say, an antagonist that seems unbeatable, but you're able to construct a believable, suspenseful plot where the protagonist finds the all-powerful character's weakness and exploits it, can make for a very interesting story.  But then again, I'm no expert.
Now, whether it's a problem, I can't say.  But would it surprise me?  Not really.  It probably depends on the kind of stories you're interested in reading.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Jan 18, 2009)

Everyone loves a Mary Sue.
It's generally a sign of an immature person writing.  Very young authors (meaning probably preteen to early teen) tend to prefer self-insertions, but with a self that has none of the real self's flaws and a lot of bonuses.  And since it's supposed to be them, there's very little real conflict or danger toward them at any time.  It's pleasurable writing for them, but it's absolutely awful to read.
Think of it like using a cheat code, but in a novel rather than a game.  You only do it if you don't have the skill otherwise to beat the game/write the novel.  More experienced folks don't use cheats, and they frown upon those who do.


> Are overpowered characters becoming a problem?


No... I mean, one of the earliest works of English literature, Beowulf, uses an overpowered character.  The guy ripped off Grendel's arm with his bare hands, fought Grendel's mother underwater for several hours without having to take a breath, and killed a dragon.  So things like this have been around for a long time.  Hasn't ruined us yet.
And it's because, like you said, it's no fun if the good guy wins all the time without struggling.  It's like watching a sumo wrestler fight a toddler; it's amusing for a couple of minutes, then it just gets sad.


----------



## kitreshawn (Jan 18, 2009)

See the above post.

He is completely correct that this is Mary Sue appearing in a story and it is by no means restricted to the fur fandom.

Usually the writer is young or inexperienced and often the story is a way to insert their ideal self into a setting.  A sort of wish fulfillment for the author that lets them live through their fantasies if only on paper.

Typically they appear in Fan Fiction, often as a new character interacting with the canon characters for that story universe.  Many times they end up romancing one of the leads and/or outdoing one of the leads in the course of the story.

It isn't at all uncommon for the Mary Sue to be an outcast in these stories (usually when written by a teen) and ends up getting accepted by showing how awesome/powerful/whatever they are.

Often times if the character is a male he is an amazing fighter and can level whole armies by himself using his kick butt skills.  In these instances he is usually either so good he comes out completely unharmed or is very badly wounded causing much worry over the character.  In the case that the character is very badly hurt he either recovers fully with no real ill effects very quickly or dies causing much angst among other characters (you'll all miss me if I died!) though it isn't uncommon for the character to come back to life.

This type of thing is very common in writing, so much so it is one of the top things to avoid in a story.  Even some published books have characters that are Mary Sue's.


----------



## Chanticleer (Jan 18, 2009)

Suddenly my author insertion seems out of place: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1836847/ .

But seriously, I hear you all about the Mary Sues, but I've found overpowered characters to be a bit more general than that. And M has a point about OP characters being around forever (by the way, as far as epics go, that's what made The Odyssey better than The Illiad, a flawed hero.)   

Maybe I'm being a bit hypocritical though, as I'm currently devouring the fountainhead.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Jan 18, 2009)

> Suddenly my author insertion seems out of place: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1836847/ .


I had no idea you could draw such brilliant comics.



> Maybe I'm being a bit hypocritical though, as I'm currently devouring the fountainhead.


Howard Roark can do whatever he wants, because he's not a character.  He's a device.



****SPOILER ALERT****



That's why Dominique falls in love with him after he rapes her, as opposed to what would be the normal reaction.  Everyone in that book is a tool of some kind for the plot.  One of the reasons I wasn't all that fond of it.


----------



## Gavrill (Jan 18, 2009)

So is my amputee character not viable in today's stories? =[


----------



## Xipoid (Jan 18, 2009)

Overpowered characters can be fun if you make them interesting. Otherwise I guess they are just bland and somewhat boring as they bring no real challenge or struggle.


----------



## dietrc70 (Jan 18, 2009)

M. Le Renard said:


> Everyone loves a Mary Sue.
> It's generally a sign of an immature person writing.  Very young authors (meaning probably preteen to early teen) tend to prefer self-insertions, but with a self that has none of the real self's flaws and a lot of bonuses.  And since it's supposed to be them, there's very little real conflict or danger toward them at any time.  It's pleasurable writing for them, but it's absolutely awful to read.
> Think of it like using a cheat code, but in a novel rather than a game.  You only do it if you don't have the skill otherwise to beat the game/write the novel.  More experienced folks don't use cheats, and they frown upon those who do.
> 
> ...



Agreed.  I especially like the cheat code analogy.

Beowulf is a good example of how overpowered characters can work effectively.  Beowulf is a bit like a Norse god--he's superhuman but still doomed by fate.  In the end, the dragon does fatally wound him, and he dies knowing that his kingdom will be torn apart by feuds and civil war.  Hector and Achilles from the Illiad are other good examples of overpowered characters that are still put in situations where they're facing opponents that are even more powerful than they are (fate, the gods, or their own flaws).

So I don't think overpowered characters are necessarily a problem as long as they have challenges and antagonists that truly test them.


----------



## Chanticleer (Jan 18, 2009)

M. Le Renard said:


> I had no idea you could draw such brilliant comics.
> 
> 
> Howard Roark can do whatever he wants, because he's not a character.  He's a device.
> ...



First, thank you, I try my best.

Second, not to get into a literary discussion and I'm not done with the book yet, but so far Howard Roark has had his best building ripped apart, had the love of his life, Dominique, marry two of his worst enemies and has been rendered penniless repeatedly and kicked out of school... So yeah he really hasn't been able to do whatever he wants. 

Also, I'm not sure you could call what he did to Dominique rape... I'm not sure what you'd call it honestly.


----------



## TakeWalker (Jan 19, 2009)

I would be more concerned, personally, with a story trend that would support such characters, i.e., stories that are just about fighting. There are far more plots that can be explored out there, even with just 10 stories to tell.


----------



## ScottyDM (Jan 19, 2009)

M. Le Renard said:


> Everyone loves a Mary Sue.


I LOLed. But you can't fool me. That toothy grin gives it away; you don't believe this. :wink:  And good analogy with the "cheat code" comment.


About Mary Sue characters: 





kitreshawn said:


> Typically they appear in Fan Fiction, often as a new character interacting with the canon characters for that story universe.  Many times they end up romancing one of the leads and/or outdoing one of the leads in the course of the story.


Thank God there's not much opportunity to do fan-fics in this fandom.


*Let's talk about stupid characters*. I've Googled a few "Mary Sue" tests and The Universal Mary Sue Litmus Test seems to be a pretty good one. If you read the instructions you'll see that it isn't necessary to avoid _all_ the attributes--some can become the core basis of your story. E.g. Rowling killed Harry Potter's parents in the backstory and put him in the Dursley's care. Those devices would earn several Mary Sue points, but as she was careful not to make Harry too perfect/unusual/wonderful in other ways, so it worked.

I took the test while thinking of two characters from one of my stories. Doing two at once will get a higher score (like golf, high is bad), but I'm too lazy to do this twice. My results:

P-1, Q-1k: Yea. While my character's name is a real name and not too unusual, it was chosen for its joke potential. Originally the story was supposed to be a short, and two characters were supposed to have names that reflected a story from mythology. The joke was that they accidentally act out the story, but with a twist as the outcome. A story within a story. I've abandoned the idea of inserting the joke, but the names remain.

P-1, Q-5a: Well, duh! However it's not like I had this picture of the ideal date then created a character to fit. I created the character then decided later I liked her well enough to at least take her on a date if she were real and I didn't have a prior obligation (I'm married IRL).

P-1, Q-13: It's a 3-inch scar on the upper part of her thigh and is the result of a bit of childhood foolishness. It exists as a plot device to reveal a little something about her personality. She doesn't exactly have "perfect creamy white thighs" to begin with, so the scar doesn't hurt her appearance too much. Besides if you could see it, you'd probably be looking somewhere else instead.

P-1, Q-21: Kind of hard to avoid in anthrofiction, but I checked it because there are very few of my main character's species compared to the number of humans in the world. No other checks on Q 21. If my world were peopled with 100% "humanimals" then I'd not have checked the box.

P-1, Q-42a: Okay, didn't check 42, but I did check 42a. The reason is that he isn't the best, but he is famous. He advertises. :wink: 

P-1, Q-74: Yea, and it's an important part of the story. Actually, it happened to her great-great-great-great-great-grandfather, but there's no proof so it's just a nice fairy tale passed down from generation to generation. Some family members believe it and some don't. However something happens at the end that only makes sense if that old family story is true.

P-1, Q-82: Oh come on! We're supposed to write about unlikeable people?

Part-5 questions take points off the total.

P-5, Q-1: The premise of the story is that the hero is messed up and he becomes unmessed up with the help of his friends and the heroine.

P-5, Q-15: That's another critical part of the story. It would be dumb to cast a human as the main character. Likewise it would be equally dumb if the main character behaved and reacted like a human.

I got 6 Mary Sue points, which is pretty reasonable. I think one of those part 1 questions counted as 2 points.

Scotty


----------



## M. LeRenard (Jan 19, 2009)

I took that test myself....
The MC of my book got 16.  But the majority of it came from the five or six boxes I had to check with regard to his name.  I've often felt like changing it, but at this point it would just seem wrong to do so, even if it's a stupid name.  I just decided that his mother was one of those people who had a baby without really thinking about the name much, and so went with something she thought was funny or clever.  Like this family I read about in Freakonomics that got into a big fight because the father decided to name the boy something that is pronounced shuh-tead, but is spelled Shithead.  You know.  It probably works, though, because his mother is a bit of a skank, and his real father is nowhere to be found.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.  Not that I came up with the name about five years ago when I was really into anime and started vaguely trying to learn Japanese.
Anyway, 16 is still very low, so I think the name can stay.  I poke a bit of fun at it throughout the story, at least.
That's a good test.  Gives you a lot of 'you should avoid these characteristics' kind of characteristics.


----------



## ScottyDM (Jan 19, 2009)

I got so wound up in that test that I forgot to comment on this:


TakeWalker said:


> I would be more concerned, personally, with a story trend that would support such characters, i.e., stories that are just about fighting. There are far more plots that can be explored out there, even with just 10 stories to tell.


Stories that exist only to showcase a particular something are porn, or just like porn. That is if the story exists only so people who love ___ can read a scene that is ___, and this scene goes on for the majority, or all, of the story, then the story may as well be porn.

The obvious example is a sex scene where the story _is_ porn. But it also works with fight scenes (pick a discipline), gore scenes, transformation scenes, and if you've ever read any traditional romance you'll get the impression that some people are _really_ into clothing. Clothing porn? Well, the hero takes the heroine on a shopping trip (he's rich, she's practically naked having lost all her clothing in some sort of mishap earlier in the book) and the author spends page after page describing silks, necklines, sleeves, laces, hems, colors, etc., etc. while the heroine tries on gown after gown, each fit for a princess. I imagine some readers get wet reading of such shameless indulgence.

But that sort of thing isn't the same as porn. After all, if it's a 400 page book and the author spends only 20 pages on the shopping trip, then it's just a bit of indulgence to titillate the fans that love that sort of thing. It becomes porn when the ratio is closer to 21 pages of story that contains 20 pages of that lovingly described shopping trip.


I think what's bad about this sort of approach to writing, or to seeking out stories to read, is the quality of the writing. Beginners seem to gravitate to this sort of thing.

There are several reasons for this. For example someone (the author) simply wants a hawt sex scene between himself and Zig Zag, or he wants to be the hero with the sharpest katana, so he writes it. But woe to anyone who stumbles across that scene should the author post it to the Internet. Such authors seldom care about anything but indulging their own fantasy.

Another reason is that writing decent fiction is hard. Fiction is the most demanding form of writing there is. There are a broad range of skills in which one must become reasonably proficient in order to write decent fiction. So if the beginner can skip some of those skills for now--say by borrowing someone else's storyworld and characters (fan-fics), or by skipping the story and writing a few scenes (porn, as I've described it)--the task of becoming proficient at the craft is reduced to manageable size. Once the beginner has become proficient in a few skills such as dialog, description, and pacing then he or she can work on others such as plot construction and character motivation.

Sometimes one stumbles across well written porn--whether it be sex, fight, gore, transformation, clothing, or something else. Some people like that sort of thing and don't always feel like reading all that other "junk" that goes around it (the story), and some skilled writers will accommodate them.


Personally I like the story, with its character motivation and growth.

Scotty


----------



## TakeWalker (Jan 20, 2009)

ScottyDM said:


> Stories that exist only to showcase a particular something are porn, or just like porn. That is if the story exists only so people who love ___ can read a scene that is ___, and this scene goes on for the majority, or all, of the story, then the story may as well be porn.



Oh God, thank you. THESE ARE THE WORDS I HAVE BEEN SEARCHING FOR. Gore-porn; fetish porn; porn that has nothing to do with sexuality and everything to do with gross glorification of one aspect of a story. I'm no doubt guilty of the same thing myself, but now, now I can express my disgust at these stories with the right word.

You're a beautiful person, Scotty D.


----------



## foozzzball (Jan 20, 2009)

On the topic of porn, I find that it's not so much an intrinsic quality of sex. 

It's because porn is artistically bankrupt. This is very similar to Scotty's point, but from a different angle.

If 'horny' is the artistic concept being gotten across, pornography of 'Happy' would be some kid getting five birthday cakes, having favourite songs on the radio _all_ the time, and winning the lottery (twice).

It's not that it's all that happens, it's that there's no counterpoint, no change, no risks. A good story isn't about a static situation, it is about things that change and alter and challenge people.

It's not that sleazy stuff is innately crappy to write about, it's that people tend to write crappily about it.


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Jan 20, 2009)

An example of a Fur Sue: the dog character Malloy in Heathen City.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Jan 20, 2009)

Well-written porn exists?


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Jan 20, 2009)

Yup.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Jan 21, 2009)

I didn't know. A lot of the stuff I found has whore after cassanova. 

What about "Writers Pet Syndrome"?


----------



## kitreshawn (Jan 21, 2009)

Digitalpotato said:


> I didn't know. A lot of the stuff I found has whore after cassanova.
> 
> What about "Writers Pet Syndrome"?



That could refer to several different things.  Care to elaborate what you mean?


----------



## Stinkdog (Jan 21, 2009)

WolfoxOkamichan said:


> An example of a Fur Sue: the dog character Malloy in Heathen City.



I totally agree.  "I've planned out everything that could possibly go wrong and a solution for it because I knew that this day would totally come." Talk about a bad anime deus ex machina.

I don't know if anyone's mentioned this yet, but I think that people who write Mary Sue characters are either forgetting or don't know about the importance of adding a human quality to the character.  Take Superman for example, he's not a Mary Sue because of his ability to empathize with and act like a human without actually being one.  He makes human mistakes, has human problems (as well as his kryptonian ones), and he is also faced with dilemmas of self and existence that are core dilemmas of the human condition.

I know this is a furry board so some may be thinking, "What the hell do humans have to do with writing furry stories?" and the answer is everything.  Why?  Because we the readers and writers are human and we identify most with characters that act like we do in real life; like humans.

I've been told before that some of my work "has no business being furry" and that I should make all of the characters human instead.  I replied by saying thank you.   I mean sure you can have a two-handed sword wielding lion guy in a loincloth snarling and roaring on a battlefield who can't ever die and who never makes mistakes in your furry fantasy epic, but that's a pretty boring concept.  People like to read about characters making human mistakes and triumphing (or not in the case of tragedies) over the consequences of those mistakes.  That's why Mary Sue characters always fail.

Coincidentally, setting up a character who seems perfect only to have them screw everything up is also effective.  It's also why celebrity gossip magazines are wildly successful.  People also love watching "perfect" characters mess up just like we do.


----------



## Poetigress (Jan 21, 2009)

Digitalpotato said:


> Well-written porn exists?



I prefer to call the adult stories I write 'erotica' rather than 'porn', as 'porn' has too much of a throwaway text-based-sex-toy connotation for my liking, but I think the finished products could be called well-written.  See what you think.

As for the overpowered Mary Sue characters, I feel like we've had this discussion before, maybe back in the "believable characters" thread, so I don't think I have anything else to add.

I will say, though, that I agree that the shortcomings of porn aren't intrinsic to the fact that the story is about sex.  It's when nothing is going on with the characters or story other than the depiction of the physical act, that the story becomes shallow and pointless except as an aid to physical gratification.


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Jan 21, 2009)

As long as you avoid IKEA erotica, then you're fine.


----------



## Stinkdog (Jan 21, 2009)

Poetigress said:


> I will say, though, that I agree that the shortcomings of porn aren't intrinsic to the fact that the story is about sex.  It's when nothing is going on with the characters or story other than the depiction of the physical act, that the story becomes shallow and pointless except as an aid to physical gratification.



I agree with your definition of erotica.  Combining good prose with believable sex is something I strive towards in my own writing, not because I'm a perv (well I guess I am), but rather because I hate reading badly written erotic writing.  I do it to set an example as it were and to show people that such a thing as well written porn can exist.


----------



## Stinkdog (Jan 21, 2009)

WolfoxOkamichan said:


> As long as you avoid IKEA erotica, then you're fine.



and what, pray tell, is IKEA erotica?


----------



## M. LeRenard (Jan 21, 2009)

> I've been told before that some of my work "has no business being furry" and that I should make all of the characters human instead. I replied by saying thank you.


Well that's a whole other topic.  You could, for example, make a huge sword-wielding lion guy for your furry fantasy epic, and have him be not very talented because generally it's the females that do all the hunting.  Hence he has an animal failing to contend with, rather than simply human ones.
But we've been over this a few times in a few different threads.


----------



## TakeWalker (Jan 21, 2009)

Stinkdog said:


> and what, pray tell, is IKEA erotica?



Fuckin' furniture! :V


----------



## Poetigress (Jan 21, 2009)

Yes, this topic has definitely been covered a few other times.  Just to sum up, though:

The "humans in fur coats" criticism occurs not because the characters have human traits, failings, and problems, but because there's no reason for the character in question to be an anthropomorphic animal -- because the character isn't affected at all by his species' traits or attributes.  It's like having an alien character who is human in every respect -- behavior, culture, thought -- except for having purple skin.  

Yes, readers need human qualities in anthro characters (in all characters, regardless of whether we're talking about animals, androids, aliens, elves, what have you) in order to identify with them, but that might not be the aspect your reader was getting at if they said your characters should be human instead of furry.


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Jan 21, 2009)

OMG YOU DONT KNOW A TROPE!

NONE TROPE ALERT! NONE TROPE ALERT! NONE TROPE ALERT!

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IKEAErotica


----------



## Stinkdog (Jan 21, 2009)

Poetigress said:


> It's like having an alien character who is human in every respect -- behavior, culture, thought -- except for having purple skin.



True.  However, when dealing with plot elements like genetic modification and magical transformations of only the physical body, you can make a character's brain remain human regardless of what form they take.  Thus, the only thing they gain is possible ridicule from "normal" humans even though deep down they still are human themselves.

Anyway, this is way off topic so I'll stop talking about it. :/


----------



## Poetigress (Jan 21, 2009)

Stinkdog said:


> However, when dealing with plot elements like genetic modification and magical transformations of only the physical body, you can make a character's brain remain human regardless of what form they take.  Thus, the only thing they gain is possible ridicule from "normal" humans even though deep down they still are human themselves.



Eh... I don't know about that.  If I were, say, transformed into a cat, it's true that I would still be thinking, and probably reacting, primarily like a human.  But it's also likely that my brain would be having to process a lot of cat sensory information, at the very least, that I wouldn't be familar with or used to handling, and I would imagine that would alter my perceptions quite a bit.  So at that point, is my brain still 100% human?  

Granted, I could see it working in a fable/parable style, where you have a completely human mind trapped in a transformed body.  But in other styles of storytelling, I don't think you could realistically transform only the physical body.  Our physical bodies can drastically affect our perceptions of ourselves.  It's almost like saying that being a human transformed into a cat would be the same as just being a really short furry human crawling around on all fours.  (Then again, this is why I have problems with some aspects of the transformation subgenre.)

(ETA: Yeah, it's off-topic, but at least it's interestingly off-topic.  And it sort of fits in with character development, anyway.)


----------



## Art Vulpine (Jan 21, 2009)

Chanticleer said:


> Hi, I'm not usually one to rant against a writing trend, but I feel compelled to speak up on this one.
> 
> It seems that in every other story I read on FA there is some gigantic uber-powered character who completely wipes the floor with everyone else in the story. I wouldn't mind seeing a character like that once in a blue moon, but after a while they just start getting really repetitive and boring.
> 
> ...


 
As an avid superhero fan, I like characters like Batman, the X-Men, and the Punnisher because of the following...

1) Most are not entirely good or evil, by in the grey area. Even villians like Magneto have some justification as to why they are evil and are not some sterotypical villian who is evil "just because."

2) They constantly struggle with outside forces and with themselves. This leads them to deal with morality and the law in interesting ideas.

The same can be said for characters in fantasy novels and for furries.


----------



## Kesslan (Jan 21, 2009)

TakeWalker said:


> Fuckin' furniture! :V


 


Stinkdog said:


> and what, pray tell, is IKEA erotica?


 

I will never look at my job the same, ever again >.>


----------



## makmakmob (Jan 21, 2009)

(on the subject of the fur coats thing)
Does anyone think it could be worth describing an anthropomorphic character's point of view using senses more in line with said animal's perception? (foxes hear and smell better than they see, cats can't see red e.t.c)


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Jan 21, 2009)

Inari85 said:


> As an avid superhero fan, I like characters like Batman, the X-Men, and the Punnisher because of the following...
> 
> 1) Most are not entirely good or evil, by in the grey area. Even villians like Magneto have some justification as to why they are evil and are not some sterotypical villian who is evil "just because."
> 
> ...



Not necessarily. It really depends on the writer, and a lot of people really don't like Punisher because he's easily a generic amoral. Magneto? LOL

Note - just because something is morally ambiguous and/or imperfect, doesn't make it quite awesome. Case in point, the Nineties has an uber-saturation of "anti-heroes".

Want to see a good example of classic heroes in a well-written story? Go read Kingdom Come.


----------



## Xipoid (Jan 21, 2009)

makmakmob said:


> (on the subject of the fur coats thing)
> Does anyone think it could be worth describing an anthropomorphic character's point of view using senses more in line with said animal's perception? (foxes hear and smell better than they see, cats can't see red e.t.c)



If done correctly, it could help the immersion and possibly make the character more interesting to read about as well as realistic. Though a word of caution, if the character has always been that species, those "extra" traits would be natural to it and thus not deserve too much mention as they would likely be taken for granted. (Honestly, how often do you think about your hearing range or the aromas you smell everyday?). Subtlety is the key, except when the anthropomorph's body is something to be explored (e.g. a transformation or transfer of consciousness).


----------



## Chanticleer (Jan 21, 2009)

As far as human-ish aliens go, look up "convergent evolution" sometime.


----------



## fivecrazyfurries (Jan 21, 2009)

I like the Mary Sue definition

I think overpowered characters work from the outside perspective. If your character is flawed working with an overpowered character I could see the system working(e.i. Last Samurai flawed man works with heroic warriors and learns something he must share, even one more back is the photographer) but I guess the inverse of that thought would be something like Tuesdays with Maurie, where our intelligient old man is missed so much by everyone.

Needless to say I'm off to MSword for revisions!


----------



## M. LeRenard (Jan 21, 2009)

> Does anyone think it could be worth describing an anthropomorphic character's point of view using senses more in line with said animal's perception?


Sure.  Along the lines of what Xipoid said, you just meld that kind of perception into your writing.  But you've got to consider a lot of things, too, in order to do that.  For example, with dogs, their vision is based on sensing motion, and is otherwise fairly poor.  They can't perceive things that are very far away or very close, so if you wanted to add a visual detail, you'd have to consider whether or not that would actually be something a dog would notice (a squirrel jumping through the branches of a tree, yes, but probably not a tree house).  Or worse yet, you could have a snake as a character, and then have to deal with vision in the infrared spectrum combined with tasting the air.  I mean, depending on what you choose to work with, it could get pretty wacky, so it all depends on how far out you want to go to be accurate.  But in the end, if you do it well, it could be rather interesting.


----------



## ScottyDM (Jan 22, 2009)

Digitalpotato said:


> Well-written porn exists?


In theory. But a practical limitation is that porn often describes every action and reaction in minute detail. However, is the writer's imagination a match for the reader's?

This question goes for writing descriptions of places, characters, and characters' feelings as well. For example when I write I know exactly what my characters look like, right down to a crooked stripe or misplaced spot. But the art is knowing how much to describe and how much free reign to give your readers so they can fill in their own details. In essence description is telling, and too much description gets in the way of the story, but then too little doesn't give some readers enough to work with. They can't tell if your fox walks on two legs or four, or if he wears pants or not (like some cartoon character who may walk on two legs, but only wears a vest and hat).

Now there's a style of writing called Literary (the modern genre of Literary, not the traditional genre of literary). The whole point of Literary seems to be description and feelings told in the most beautiful prose possible. It's all about word choice and rhythm (although some of it is nearly impossible to read aloud). I've thought of a good analogy: It's like examining the world through a jeweler's loupe and never removing it from your eye. The reader sees each blade of grass, each pebble, every mole and wrinkle, and the reader knows how each character feels at any given moment. Of course it's kind of hard to see the story through all that detail. I find reading more than a chapter at a time of Literary to be exhausting.

It almost seems like porn and Literary could go together. Hang the story, lets get into the sticky details!



Stinkdog said:


> I've been told before that some of my work "has no business being furry" and that I should make all of the characters human instead.  I replied by saying thank you.


If the commenter meant that your writing is too good to be stuck in a genre like furry and that you should consider writing "serious" fiction--awesome! Although I would disagree that furry fiction is an unworthy genre of serious effort. But if the writer meant you might as well stick to humans because there was nothing in your story that needed nonhuman characters, or there was nothing about your characters that seemed nonhuman other than a static description of fur color or something--oops!

If we want to read a well-written story with anthros, sometimes any well-written story will do. However, I far prefer a story about _non_humans that really is about nonhumans, not just humans in fur coats. IMO _Zig Zag the Story_ is awesome, but it would be equally awesome with humans in all the roles.

An excellent example are the stories in this past quarter's contest. Foozzzball's story _A Fatherâ€™s Skin_ stood out because the story _wanted_ stone-age anthro-wolves as characters, and he did a good job of making his characters seem like wolves and not humans.



Poetigress said:


> I prefer to call the adult stories I write 'erotica' rather than 'porn', as 'porn' has too much of a throwaway text-based-sex-toy connotation for my liking....


That's why I prefer to use "anthrofiction" rather than "furry fiction" when talking to folks outside the fandom. If thoughts of CSI or MTV drift through their brain they shut down and stop taking the genre seriously. I've come to realize the only practical difference between anthrofiction and furry fiction is the range of stuff that may be anthropomorphized. Furry = animal. Anthro = animal, vegetable, or mineral.  But since 99% of the stuff seems to be animal based, that's hardly a distinction.

Before I took up management of the contest, and I was forced to create a reasonable working definition for anthrofiction, I had this quick and dirty definition: If it's badly written it's furry and if it's well written it's sci-fi or fantasy. Sort of the "is it good enough to publish" test. After much thought and debate with others, I now see anthro/furry is a genre in its own right. Well written or badly written is a separate issue.



Stinkdog said:


> Poetigress said:
> 
> 
> > I will say, though, that I agree that the shortcomings of porn aren't intrinsic to the fact that the story is about sex.  It's when nothing is going on with the characters or story other than the depiction of the physical act, that the story becomes shallow and pointless except as an aid to physical gratification.
> ...


PT's definition has nothing to do with how well the piece is written. It's about the purpose of the piece, which impacts the rest of the story. For example does the rest of the story even exist, or do you simply get a quickie scene slapped on the front to make it look like a story and not porn.

Stinkdog, it sounds like what you want to write is Literary porn. :twisted: Now that'll confuse 'em! BTW, Literary is highly respected among serious partakers of prose. Want to win an international award? Write Literary.


*Hey! It's time for something completely different: Let's get back on topic.*

Think of your current work-in-progress, or if not a writer think of someone else's WIP. Next pick out a character from that story and give that character The Universal Mary Sue Litmus Test. Report the score and any comments you wish to make.

Scotty

PS: This is what happens if you start a response, then go off to eat dinner and don't come back until after watching a couple of tee-vee shows.


----------



## ScottyDM (Jan 22, 2009)

makmakmob said:


> (on the subject of the fur coats thing)
> Does anyone think it could be worth describing an anthropomorphic character's point of view using senses more in line with said animal's perception? (foxes hear and smell better than they see, cats can't see red e.t.c)


Last fall I wrote a paper on how to do that: Species Characterization in Anthrofiction: Ten Useful Techniques with Examples. Section 4.3 is about using senses.

Scotty


----------



## Poetigress (Jan 22, 2009)

Scotty, there is such a genre as "literary erotica."  Check out the annual anthologies like _Best American Erotica_ for starters, if you don't mind being seen hanging out in that area of the bookstore.  

Also, yes, I know about convergent evolution, but that doesn't change the fact that the character ideally still needs some purpose for being nonhuman within that story.


----------



## kitreshawn (Jan 22, 2009)

To answer the question about using senses: Yes.

The way you precieve the world is very heavily impacted by the senses you use the most.  For humans that means our world is a place of sights and touches (being our two most sensitive senses) while for a dog the world becomes a place of sounds and smells.

Now I would suggest that you keep describing in good detail how things look and what they feel like (if they are touched) because that will anchor your players with something they are familiar with, but also add in things like smell or sounds that a normal human wouldn't pay attention to or even notice.

This can even effect your dialogue (E.G. a dog might be more likely to say "You smell beautiful" than "You look beautiful.")


----------



## ScottyDM (Jan 22, 2009)

kitreshawn said:


> The way you precieve the world is very heavily impacted by the senses you use the most.  For humans that means our world is a place of sights and touches (being our two most sensitive senses) while for a dog the world becomes a place of sounds and smells.


Yes!



kitreshawn said:


> Now I would suggest that you keep describing in good detail how things look and what they feel like (if they are touched) because that will anchor your players with something they are familiar with, but also add in things like smell or sounds that a normal human wouldn't pay attention to or even notice.


No. It is a common beginning writer's mistake to _only_ describe the world in terms of how it looks (as is natural for a species whose primary sense is visual) and it takes effort to break out of that mindset and include other senses. There's also the issue that too much description slows the story. So, for example, if you're in a dog's point-of-view then try to write using the dog's _primary_ senses and forget what your character sees. This will be almost impossible because: A few things will need to be described that are in the distance or moving too fast for scent or sound alone to work, and as a human you will not truly _grok_ the world of scents and fail at accurately depicting the dog's point-of-view.

But try. Try to write your scenes using _only_ scents and sounds in your descriptions. You'll be forced to sneak in a few visual references and those will be enough to balance the scene so that your readers can get it.



kitreshawn said:


> This can even effect your dialogue (E.G. a dog might be more likely to say "You smell beautiful" than "You look beautiful.")


Quite so! And now, a sample of the techniques mentioned.


> Paris leaned against the porch rail, his nose pointed toward the row of bare cottonwoods that lined the river. The scent from the field of mustard drifted on the night air and mingled with those of the soil, moldering cottonwood leaves, and other perfumes of the Salinas Valley countryside.
> 
> His ears flicked back as the door squeaked open behind him and he caught the fragrance of fox musk mingled with the piquant odor of pre-estrus hormones. Without turning he said, â€œHello Brig.â€
> 
> ...


"The row of bare cottonwoods that lined the river," is a visual reference, but I didn't know how else to depict this.

Scotty


----------



## fivecrazyfurries (Jan 22, 2009)

Well I hit a 25 for my main character even after polishing. I dunno I'm in a bit of denial here. Would you put a bit of slack on the score if such traits as, "Does your character ever carry shiny objects in case they might be handy." or "Has a sharp wit and spitfire personality." are maticulously developed instead of appearing without development.

I just tried eliminating said highly developed traites and got a 20.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Jan 22, 2009)

> Well I hit a 25 for my main character even after polishing. I dunno I'm in a bit of denial here. Would you put a bit of slack on the score if such traits as, "Does your character ever carry shiny objects in case they might be handy." or "Has a sharp wit and spitfire personality." are maticulously developed instead of appearing without development.


Mostly you just want to ask yourself, "How often do I mention [insert Mary Sue trait here] in this story, and is it important?"  If you only mention it in passing and it has little bearing on the story in general, get rid of it.  And not because it's a "Mary Sue trait", but because it's unnecessary.  Like if he carries sharp objects around, but you only think to mention it during times when they might be useful to get him out of a bind, or what have you.  Because then it just sounds like you're cheating: "Oh yeah, he cuts the bonds on his hands because he totally carries around a bunch of knives.  Forgot to mention that, but it's true.  So he escapes."  See what I'm getting at?
This test, you'll notice, is based on whether or not the traits you're putting those check-boxes for make sense or not.  You don't check 'hybrid of some kind' if everyone is a hybrid in your world, and the like.  So even if you score a 25, 30, or even a 40 or 50 (well, okay... 40 and 50 is probably pushing it no matter what, because a bunch of those questions are unrelated), your character can still work if you have a legitimate reason for every trait you've given him.


----------



## kitreshawn (Jan 23, 2009)

ScottyDM said:


> Yes!
> 
> 
> No. It is a common beginning writer's mistake to _only_ describe the world in terms of how it looks (as is natural for a species whose primary sense is visual) and it takes effort to break out of that mindset and include other senses. There's also the issue that too much description slows the story. So, for example, if you're in a dog's point-of-view then try to write using the dog's _primary_ senses and forget what your character sees. This will be almost impossible because: A few things will need to be described that are in the distance or moving too fast for scent or sound alone to work, and as a human you will not truly _grok_ the world of scents and fail at accurately depicting the dog's point-of-view.
> Scotty



Just 2 things here:

1) Notice I didn't say to use sight and sound to the exclusion of all other senses when writing just humans, just that those are the main ones.  Also notice that when I talked about anthro-stories I said you GROUND your description in sight and touch.  Critical difference between that and _ONLY_ describing using sight and touch.

In fact, your comment about how describing only using scent or sound and forgetting what is being seen being simply impossible to do proves my point.

2) Notice I said describe in "good detail."  Again, good detail does not mean the same thing as lots and lots and lots of detail.  It means that you describe things sufficiently to create the vivid image you want without getting excessive.  Describing things excessively is not "good detail."  In fact it is very very poor description.


----------



## reian (Jan 28, 2009)

I try to balance my characters in some way.  I hate the all powerful characters that many people seem to create.  Or the characters that have everyone look there way.  I feel like I can't relate to that or even sympathize with their problems when they do arise.


----------



## ScottyDM (Jan 29, 2009)

kitreshawn said:


> Also notice that when I talked about anthro-stories I said you GROUND your description in sight and touch.  Critical difference between that and _ONLY_ describing using sight and touch.


And I say that when in the POV of a character whose _primary_ sense is _not_ sight and touch--_ground_ the descriptions for that scene in the _primary_ sense of the POV character.

It's hard enough trying to write from a nonhuman POV without thinking it's okay to write the scene from a human POV and then sprinkle in a bit of nonhuman senses.


In his book _Stein on Writing_ by editor and novelist Sol Stein, chapter 17 is titled: "How to Use All Six of Your Senses". On page 162 he writes:





> Humans see the world. Other animals smell it. Watch a cat investigating anything new, a surrounding, a possible food. It leads with it's nose, just as its larger sisters in the jungle do. Cats and other animals define the world first by smell.


Stein isn't even talking about anthrofiction; he's talking about improving any fiction. But in anthrofiction why write a scene from a viewpoint that is alien to your character? So if your character's _primary_ sense is scent--_lead_ with scent.


In the book _Writing the Breakout Novel_ by agent Donald Maass, he writes of a "secret ingredient" when describing time and place. Starting on page 97 he writes:





> One of the greatest achievements in descriptiveness of recent decades can be found in the German novel _Perfume_ (1987) by Patrick SÃ¼skind (stylishly translated into English by John E. Woods). _Perfume_ concerns an abominable perfumer's apprentice whose twisted pleasure is using the methods of his craft to capture the scent of young virgins at the moments of their deaths. He is a serial killer motivated by scent. The novel is set in eighteenth century France. All its description is olfactory. No sights, sounds, touch, or taste are presented. Here is SÃ¼skind's opening presentation of this world:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So we know this sort of description is possible.

It may seem extreme, but consider the grizzly bear. Probably 70% of their perception of the world is scent, and 20% is sound. To a grizzly bear, smelling is believing. A fox is probably more balanced with 40% scent, 40% sound, and most of the rest (maybe 15%) sight.

Or consider a dog or cat. Why do few of them ever develop any interest in watching TV? Because it's _watching_, and watching something just isn't that compelling.


The good writer differentiates one character from another. Perhaps through speech patterns, behavioral ticks, and attitude revealed by how that character interacts with others and the world around them. As writers of anthrofiction we have an additional dimension of characterization provided because at least some of our characters are something other than human. Why throw that opportunity away or bury it beneath a primarily human viewpoint?

Scotty


----------



## ScottyDM (Jan 29, 2009)

M. Le Renard said:


> Like if he carries sharp objects around, but you only think to mention it during times when they might be useful to get him out of a bind, or what have you.  Because then it just sounds like you're cheating: "Oh yeah, he cuts the bonds on his hands because he totally carries around a bunch of knives.  Forgot to mention that, but it's true.  So he escapes."  See what I'm getting at?


I remember the original _Man from U.N.C.L.E._ TV show. The heroes carried a strip of plastic explosives sewn into their neckties. When captured they could blow the hinges right off their cell door. Of course they did it a few times, and sometimes T.H.R.U.S.H. operatives would anticipate the old plastic explosives hidden in the tie trick and take it away from them.

Probably one of the disappointments of a TV series, especially as they were written in the '60s, is that the regular characters are static. Doesn't matter what kind of trouble they get into, how many enemy agents guard their cell, they _will_ get out and prevail in the end. That in itself is sort of Mary-Sueish.

Scotty


----------



## Chanticleer (Jan 29, 2009)

You know as far as using senses go, we do have to note that we are writing (in anthro-fiction) about fictional beings who may or may not retain their animalistic senses. We should also be careful how we use such animalistic traits in general, my favorite example being the raw meat trope. Sentient animal people are more likely to eat cooked meat simply because it is easier to digest and has a lower risk of parasitic infection.

However, if we were doing characters with massive senses of smell I might take advantage of it by removing my narrator's ability to smell. Thus allowing myself to more easily describe the story and add to the dramatic tension by the other characters reaction to this "cripple".


----------



## Poetigress (Jan 29, 2009)

Chanticleer said:


> we do have to note that we are writing (in anthro-fiction) about fictional beings who may or may not retain their animalistic senses.



*nods*  And one can play with that aspect.  Right now, the "humans in fur coats" are the clichÃ©, but as the genre continues to develop, it's quite likely we'll get to the point where it becomes trite and overused to do the whole "fox anthro has all the fox senses" thing.  (Kind of the way we've gone with werewolves and vampires -- just about every possible combination of traditional vs. nontraditional has been used, so now it isn't so much a matter of trying to be different, it's a matter of what works for the particular characters and story.)

It also depends on how your character has come into being -- if you're dealing with an engineered character, it might have made sense for the people in charge to keep some of the animal attributes and ditch others (or wind up with or without some they didn't bargain for).  For example, I tried to work against that stereotype in "Dog Days," with the anthro collie Jenna.  When her family's youngest child goes missing, the protagonist looks to her for possible help, but she has to apologize because, contrary to their expectations, her sense of smell isn't any better than the humans'.


----------



## kitreshawn (Jan 29, 2009)

I would advise against actively trying to avoid the cliche.  Not saying you should try to be cliche either.

The thing is that things become cliche because they work so well.  Because it worked well it was tried again.  And again.  And again.  Until everyone has seen that particular thing.

My point is that if there is something you like it is almost certain it has been done before.  Just because something has been done doesn't make it bad.  The real question is if you are making it work hard enough in your story that it is worth the fact that it is cliche and do so without trying to sound self smug about how 'clever' you were.

The biggest problem I had with Eragon was that I was reading it thinking "all this shit has been done before" and marveling at just how utterly smug the author was coming across about 'his' ideas.  Most of it I had already seen before while reading the PERN books and much of what I couldn't directly recall in another book series still struck me as very familiar.  It wasn't so much that the writing was bad, I have certainly read much worse, but it felt... I don't know how to express it beyond saying that it felt somehow "dishonest."  Like what I was reading wasn't really him, but rather a bunch of ideas he liked from other sources thrown together without any of his own touches polished on.

THAT is what you need to avoid with cliches.  If you like huge battle robots don't be afraid to throw in the standard things that always go with them.  Heck, some people might even get unhappy if you leave them out, but be sure to not just rip out the cliche from someplace else and put it in your story.  You need to polish it, refine it, and make it your own so it fits and seems natural.

Properly done cliches can even help your writing.  Simply because it is cliche and everyone knows what it is and how it works you can use it very easily and get the idea across to the reader with little fuss.  You can do this for word economy (always a good thing to keep an eye on) or even to draw a contrast between the standard Cliche and the places where you have deviated from that standard to refresh things a bit.

In any case, I am getting preachy and I think everyone gets the point.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Jan 29, 2009)

I would say, though, that there's a difference between something that's used a lot because it works and something that's clichÃ©.  With clichÃ©, it's used a lot, because it works initially and lots of people like it, and then it's used some more, and even more after that, ad nauseum.  In other words, at this point it's gotten so overused that no one wants to see it anymore.
But that's just semantics.  You're right: use what works in the context of your work, regardless of how often it's been used before.


> Like what I was reading wasn't really him, but rather a bunch of ideas he liked from other sources thrown together without any of his own touches polished on.


Oh, yes, absolutely.  You stole the words right from my... ah... keyboard.  Fact is, that was one of the clearest signs that the guy had no idea what he was doing; none of his writing had any hint of a human touch.  It felt to me like he wasn't writing a book for the enjoyment of it, but rather to impress people.  And that in combination with the fact that there was nothing at all impressive about it made it miserable to read.

You know (totally unrelated note... sorry), I actually physically got sick from reading Eragon.  I borrowed it from someone, who, little did I know, was just coming down with stomach flu, and in the course of reading it I contracted the virus.  I spent the whole next day wretching into a wastebasket....  I mean, I just should never have picked that piece of crap up in the first place.


----------



## Chanticleer (Jan 31, 2009)

M. Le Renard said:


> Fact is, that was one of the clearest signs that the guy had no idea what he was doing; none of his writing had any hint of a human touch.  It felt to me like he wasn't writing a book for the enjoyment of it, but rather to impress people.  And that in combination with the fact that there was nothing at all impressive about it made it miserable to read.



I find it odd that you can say things like that and still dislike The Fountainhead.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Jan 31, 2009)

> I find it odd that you can say things like that and still dislike the fountainhead.


What do you mean?  Ayn Rand wrote The Fountainhead to impress people, too, though hers was a much loftier kind of impression.  It's a philosophy book, and if you read it like that it's fine (though a little on the lengthy side), but if you try to read it as fiction you're in for a surprise.


----------



## Chanticleer (Jan 31, 2009)

M. Le Renard said:


> What do you mean?  Ayn Rand wrote The Fountainhead to impress people, too, though hers was a much loftier kind of impression.  It's a philosophy book, and if you read it like that it's fine (though a little on the lengthy side), but if you try to read it as fiction you're in for a surprise.



...

The entire point of her philosophy was that like your dear friend Paolini, Peter Keating and the other successful architects were making rehashed things to impress people rather than doing their work because they loved it like Roark. 

I thought that was obvious.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Feb 1, 2009)

Just... nevermind.  I read the book five years ago over the course of a single month.  All I clearly remember is that I never really got to _like_ any of the characters, because they all felt like tools for Rand's grand philosophical scheme.  Hence my earlier response.  If how you're interpreting Keating and all them is true, well... that would be a great irony, wouldn't it?
But I'm not discussing the book here.  This will be my last post on the subject.


----------

