Hesitation is not as endearing as you might think...

[khiemtran]

I've noticed two interesting things lately. The first is that, as a reader, I find I have much more sympathy with characters when I *dont'* get shown their internal indecision. The second is that, as a writer, I tend to put in internal angst almost automatically.

That's not to say I don't like characters with internal conflict, quite the opposite, in fact. It's just that the most sympathetic characters tend to be the ones whose conflict is portrayed externally, and at a longer distance. It's a bit like walking a mile in someone's shoes versus sharing a crowded minute in their head. The indecision is still there, but it's not protrayed second by second. Instead it's shown by the character's actions and their different states over time. Show the kid still at the counter of the candy shop an hour later and you've shown indecision more much endearingly than if you showed all the internal rationalisation

_Anna Karenina_ was really the catalyst for me. It made me realise how much I cared about characters who I'd only seen from the outside. I also noticed how little indecision was shown. There were certainly characters faced with problems they couldn't solve and solutions they couldn't find, but, when shown to the reader, they were always shown in a decisive state, even if that state would later change or their decision was to put off their problem.

I wonder if this is something to do with the way we form sympathy in the first place. When we form sympathy with others, we do it through external channels only, by learning and observing. We have empathy with ourselves by default and I think it's easy to confuse the internal stream of monologue we all get with the natural sympathy we have with ourselves. (This might be related too, to the problem of writers who like their characters so much that they take sympathy with them for granted).

Comments

[nycshelly.livejournal.com]

That's very interesting. I form sympathy more for people I know than those I don't. I can feel empathy for anyone, in that we're all human and as long as someone isn't nasty to me, they get the benefit of the doubt and my empathy. But for deeper emotions, I tend to need to know them beyond the surface. And I don't know that I'm all that good at reading the external behaviors.

Behaviorism tells us that's all we can really know about a person and what we have to judge, but because I know, from my own experience in both misreading people and being misread, that different motivations can yield similar behavior, as a reader and writer, I want to see below the surface. I don't necessarily need to see the inner conflict, but it definitely adds to my reading experience and as a writer, I enjoy getting that deeply into a character's head and showing the inner conflict by writing from that tight perspective.

I also think empathy, and perhaps sympathy, since they're typically based on our own experiences, can have little to do with the reality of a situation because we can't see inside someone's head, and therefore, a skilled psychopath or personable sociopath, ie a Ted Bundy or similar serial killer who could charm a potential victim, can garner sympathy and empathy where none is truly warranted. Perhaps similar is how inmates can worm their way into the hearts of lonely women who feel the need to correspond with them.

I'm not sure, though, that writers are taking sympathy for their characters for granted as much as not realizing how much in their head is making it to paper. For me, I know I tend to think I'm spelling things out too much, so I pull back stuff, then think I've left too many gaps, so then I put more in, perhaps too much. And one reader can say, Too much and another can say, Not enough. For ex, I think I underwrite descriptions, yet twice I've been told my descriptions are fine. The first person, who 2 years ago beta read the original, much rewritten since, first 3 chapters of the WIR, said she found my level of description perfect because she likes to fill in for herself and doesn't like too much description. I was amazed she could picture anything from what I'd written, since I'm so poor at visualizing from words.

I'm sure there are similar differences (heh) when it comes to writing characters. And in reading about them.

[khiemtran.livejournal.com]

Ah, but it's not *emotion* I'm talking about, but specifically "indecision". Sorry, I should have made that clearer.

While I think it's important to show motivation and indecision when it occurs, I think there are much better ways of showing it than by internal monologue. Even though, realistically, I'd go through a long stream of internal decision-making myself even for a minor decision, I find that riding along as a character does this doesn't actually contribute to building any sympathy. Certainly not as much as I thought it would, as a writer.

I'm more likely to be drawn to decisive characters than hesitant ones, even if the
"decisive" ones keep changing their decisions. (With an obvious exception where there the indecision is a cornerstone of the story, as in a Hamlet-style soliloquy...). I think one of the problems might be that in showing too much of the natural indecision that might normally be hidden under the surface in other people, you can make a normal character appear more indecisive than they really are.

[khiemtran.livejournal.com]

As in, "this level of hesitation is normal for me, but unusually high for other people". I think the problem is, as an author, I judge the characters by the standards I would hold for myself, whereas as a reader, I judge the characters by the standards I hold for "other people". Until I get to know them, that is.

[nycshelly.livejournal.com]

Something a lot of us do, I'm sure, though I do it more for real life than for characters, I think. When I read, I have the author as a guide, something I don't have in real life. ;)

[nycshelly.livejournal.com]

To me, indecision is an emotion, of a sort, just not as "loud" or obvious. I can feel indecisive. Actually, personally, I think I was born indecisive. I can't decide sometimes which of two doors to use. I feel something very distinct when I'm faced with choices, even those of little consequence.

And while I don't disagree with you that showing the external can be more effective, at least for many readers and writers, than the internal, my point is that the external can be somewhat bland or the same for many internal issues, whereas showing the internal struggle will get more to the heart of things.

I also think, many writers, myself included, don't always know effective behaviors to get across the inner struggle, especially when we don't know all that many people who manifest behaviors for indecision or we don't do it much ourselves, beyond being frozen in place, that is, which I'd find a bit dull to read.

Of course, how much internalizing or inner monolgue a character is prone to is a revealing point about that character. :)

[khiemtran.livejournal.com]

And while I don't disagree with you that showing the external can be more effective, at least for many readers and writers, than the internal, my point is that the external can be somewhat bland or the same for many internal issues, whereas showing the internal struggle will get more to the heart of things.

I see your point. And I certainly don't have all the answers yet. But I am slowly getting better at showing conflict externally, without resorting to monologue.

[nycshelly.livejournal.com]

No doubt a YMMV thing. And it is interesting in how we relate to the issue as writers vs readers. I tend to approach it similarly for the two and you seem to not.

Of course, there are no right answers. Just the ones that work best for each of us. :)

[heleninwales.livejournal.com]

as a reader, I find I have much more sympathy with characters when I *dont'* get shown their internal indecision. The second is that, as a writer, I tend to put in internal angst almost automatically.

I think that's very insightful, thank you.

I've always been a bit baffled that my readers didn't like some of my viewpoint characters as much as I did. (Otherwise I wouldn't have chosen them for viewpoint characters!) I've also known for years that there's a point in the fantasy whodunit where the book suddenly catches fire. (Unfortuately it's about Chapter 9 and far too late in the day!)

The characters my readers preferred were the decisive ones and the point where the novel becomes much more intense is where the POV character becomes decisive.

I think you're on to something here!