Most Common Fiction Writing Mistakes, #8

Don't Write About Wimps


Fiction writers too often forget that interesting characters are almost always characters who are active -risk takers- highly motivated toward a goal. Many a story has been wrecked at the outset because the writer chose to write about the wrong kind of person -a character of the type we sometimes call wimp.

You know what a wimp is.

He's the one who wouldn't fight under any circumstances.

Ask him what he wants and he just sighs.

Poke him and he flinches -and retreats.

Confront him with a big problem, and he fumes and fusses and can't make a decision.

Now in real life there are a lot of wimps. You and I have both been wimpy far more often than we would like to admit. We get confused, we get scared, we get far too ambivalent, and we just sit around and wait to see what might happen next.

To put it another way, in reality -in the real world- much of what happens is accidental. "Isn't life funny!" we exclaim, after fate has taken a hand and something has worked out by itself, seemingly. And so we stagger on, major life changes just sort of happening, and we often don't take the bull by the horns because we can't even figure out where the damned bull is.

That's reality.

But fiction isn't reality; as we said before, it's better.

So, in most effective fiction, accidents don’t determine the outcome. And your story people don't just sit around passively. (Now and then you'll find a story in which what I've just said is disproven; but I'm talking about most successful fiction. Most readers don't want their stories to tell them life is random. They want to hear just the opposite. They want to believe something. What they want to believe is that trying hard can pay off, and that people are in charge of their own fate.)

That's why wimps -spineless drifters who won't or can't rouse themselves to try- usually make terrible fiction characters.

Good fiction characters are fighters. They know what they want, they encounter trouble, and they struggle. They don't give up and they don't retire from the action. They don't wait for fate to settle the issue. In good fiction, the story people determine the outcome. Not fate. This is just another of the many ways in which fiction surpasses life and is better than real life.

Look at it this way: A good story is the record of movement. A good story is movement. Someone pushes; someone else pushes back. At some level, therefore, a story is the record of a fight.

If you accept this premise, then it's obvious that you can't invest the action and outcome of your story in a wimp. He'll refuse to struggle, won't push back when shoved, and will run and hide at the first opportunity.

Now this may sound like I'm arguing for only one kind of story, and action/adventure. Nothing could be further from the truth. While a strong, goal-motivated character is easier seen in such a yarn, the effective character in even the quietest modern story wil almost always be a person capable of action. In a romance novel, for example, the young woman may seem unwilling to face the man to whom she is attracted and may even deny her own feelings and actively avoid him. But please note that she is taking action, even if it is sometimes negative. In a psychological story about a man assailed by a self-doubt and uncertainty, he will realize that he has a problem and see a doctor or take a pill or discuss it with a friend or write a letter or do something.

So that -to repeat for emphasis- every story is the record of a quest. An active character worth writing about will form some goal, based on his plight and his motives. He will work toward that goal, not sit back passively. And -wonder to behold- his active selection of a goal will be picked up by the reader and used as a basis for suspense.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Most Common Fiction Writing Mistakes, #1

Most Common Fiction Writing Mistakes, #2

Most Common Fiction Writing Mistakes, #3

Most Common Fiction Writing Mistakes, #4

Most Common Fiction Writing Mistakes, #5

Most Common Fiction Writing Mistakes, #6

Most Common Fiction Writing Mistakes, #7

As I read this chapter I kept thinking about the Loving Wives category and why those stories receive the kinds of flames they do. I think it has something to do with the wimpy husband characters. People get enflamed, emotional, downright insulted over the wimpiness of these poor bastards because they refuse to take action; they let action be done to them and accept it as fatalistic. In this respect, Bickham (the author of this book) might have a point. Maybe it is true that wimps don't make good fiction characters because they don't elicit sympathy. In fact, they elicit something quite opposite: Instead of sympathizing, you want to kick the bastard in the nuts and tell him to wake the hell up.

Ooops. Yeah, see? Emotional response to a wimpy character clearly defined.

So back to this chapter... At first I didn't get what he was saying. I mean, sometimes wimps can be sympathetic, right? Well, yes. So can geeks, losers, technofreaks and the like. But then I realized he's placing the emphasis not so much on the connotative meaning of the word, but the action of being wimpy. What he's saying is that the characters need some kind of action, they need to be doing something, resolivng something, acting aggressively rather than passively letting the story pass them by. And in that respect, I agree with him.

Wimps are pretty useful in fiction.

We have the wimp that we throw in as a supporting role to the hero, to make him look even cooler.

Then we have the fake wimp. The anti-hero who starts out a wimp in the end rises to the occation, casts off the wimppyness and saves the word. Or at least himself.

But yeah, a story actually about a bona fide wimp? Not easy to pull off.

I think the lession here is a variation on the "Don't write about real people" theme. Don't write about boring people.


This is fun. Can't hardly wait for the next episode.

I'm not wholly convinced by this one.

By the author's definition Hamlet was a wimp. Unless Hamlet had the fatal indecision he wouldn't have been Hamlet. The fascination of Hamlet is the internal struggle between rationalisation and justification.

Some categories of erotic stories demand wimps as the submissive recipients of bondage and abuse. The story might be more effective if the apparent wimp was not actually wimpish but reduced to the state of wimpishness by the controlling master/mistress and is struggling physically and mentally to escape from the subservient role.

In the particular subset of fiction that is erotica, wimps as characters can be useful as foils for other more proactive characters.

I'd rather keep my wimps. They can turn into more rounded personalities with appropriate training.

Og

Some wimps are necessary. Not everyone can be a hero. Can you imagine a piece of writing where everyone in it was stong and verile and knew what they wanted and went after it? Every character? It would be like reading about a game of T-ball, where everyone wins. That's not the kind of book I'd prefer to read.

In order to have winners, there have to be losers.

oggbashan said:

I'm not wholly convinced by this one.

By the author's definition Hamlet was a wimp. Unless Hamlet had the fatal indecision he wouldn't have been Hamlet. The fascination of Hamlet is the internal struggle between rationalisation and justification.

Click to expand...

Yep. Holden Caulfied in Catcher In The Rye was also a wimp. All of Saul Bellow's protagonists are wimps too. And look at Kafka. The victim as hero has become a staple of late twentieth century fiction. The action-fueled he-man is something of an anachronism in realistic fiction these days, it seems to me. No one takes Indiana Jones seriously.

This guy's confusing objective action with drama. The most dramatic events happen internally, not externally.

I'm being a hypocrite again.

And again disagreeing with the authour. In fact, the man sounds like Thomas Carlyle. "Doubt of any sort cannot be removed except by Action."

There isn't a lot of 'action' in my longer stories. The male characters especially tend to be 'wimps' by this guy's standards.

But I often get comments from readers on how much they liked those stories because they seemed very real.

I wonder if this guy is mostly a TV scriptwriter. TV shows rarely have 'wimps', and lots of action. And TV is usually abysmally bad entertainment.

oggbashan said:

By the author's definition Hamlet was a wimp. Unless Hamlet had the fatal indecision he wouldn't have been Hamlet. The fascination of Hamlet is the internal struggle between rationalisation and justification.

Click to expand...

I don't think so, Og. By the author's definition, the internal struggle that Hamlet faces makes him anything but a wimp.


From Bickham: In a psychological story about a man assailed by a self-doubt and uncertainty, he will realize that he has a problem and see a doctor or take a pill or discuss it with a friend or write a letter or do something.


Hamlet faces a psychological struggle. He does something. He's not a wimp.

dr_mabeuse said:

The most dramatic events happen internally, not externally.

Click to expand...

I don't think the author would disagree with you, Zoot. I'll refer you to the post I made in response to Og. If psychological struggle isn't an internal struggle, what is?

In theory, the authro is right. a story about a wimpy guy would have to be comedy or paraody to work. Your protagonist has to take some kind of action or the story can only move around him.

But Jimmy Stewart made a career out o playing nice guy wimps who finally got pushed to far and did something.

As far as it goes, Sci-fi characters are still more often than not, men of action. Fantasy characters just about have to be. When you're competeing with characters like Conan, Kane, Hanse shadowspawn, you can't afford to have Auther Miquetoast as the protag. In erotica there is a niche for wimpy characters. They are a staple in many loving wives storries, and often appear in suh diverse cats as Tv/Ts, les, Bds&M, etc.

It think though, in mainstream fiction, the wimpy character as central character pretty much only flied in comedy or parody.

Ok so it's comedy but: Arthur Dent.

I can't decide if the author of these "mistakes" is being too specific or too general but I get the idea he/she is an editor of children's books. Simple solutions for simple readers. The ideas have merit but have to be interpreted uniquely.

I understand what the guy is trying to say with this one, but I tend not to agree. The ineffectual nebbish is a fairly stock character - particularly, as some have pointed out, in comedy or parody, or as comic relief. During my acting days, half the roles I got were "wimps". The Woody Allen role in "Play It Again, Sam", for example. True, he takes some action in the course of the show, but the theme has a lot to do with a guy getting buffetted around by ridiculous situations.

I think the whole Absurdist movement in theater pretty much relies on "wimpy" characters trying to deal with the vagaries of fate (or disturbed playwrights). "Godot" is about 2 guys killing time [and maybe is an exception that proves this rule]. But there are other examples. I once did a show called "Botticelli", a one-act about two GI's in Vietnam playing a word game while they wait for a sniper they have cornered to move. Then they shoot him, and continue their word game.

Generally, I would say a lack of humor is a greater sin, and a more common one, than having wimpy characters. And wimpy characters are really useful for humor.

Wimps are there for humor, sympathy/empathy, and for giving strength to the protagonist or antagonist. But they can be effective, driving characters. Nothing is springing to mind from books right now, but look at movies.

George McFly and Doc Brown from the "Back to the Future" series are whimps. McFly straightens up, but only at the end of the movie, and Brown is about as anti-confrontational as they get.

However, both of these types are nerds/geeks as mentioned above as well.

Wimps do not make good main characters as a general rule. If we see the conflict of wanting to act vs wanting to run, the fight or flight responce, then we see a more interesting character. Most of the wimps we see put into stories are stereotypical wimps, simply adding to the plot or characters in their own way. It would take one hell of an author to pull off an entire novel where the main character is, for all intents and purposes, Woody Allen.

I think this guy is perhaps doomed by his word choice . He says "wimp" and folks rip him about the millions of geeky, weakling, oddball characters that are effective and popular. But he's not talking about a dude with a pocket protector and tape on his glasses he means a character that does not act but is only acted upon.

He further qualifies this by stating that there are sucessful books/stories about passive characters but that most effective characters are active.

Also, he's not talking about every character in the book, he's talking about the protagonist. An effective protagonist usually wants something and then takes some kind of action to either get it or to suppress that want. Hard to write a book about someone who wants nothing and does nothing to upset the flow of anything ever. Sure, it can be done, and even done well, but it's the exception, not the norm.

The only thing I find to disagree with in this excerpt is Bickham's terminology, by choosing such a loaded word as "wimp" he undermines his message.


-B

*bump*

bridgeburner said:

I think this guy is perhaps doomed by his word choice . He says "wimp" and folks rip him about the millions of geeky, weakling, oddball characters that are effective and popular. But he's not talking about a dude with a pocket protector and tape on his glasses he means a character that does not act but is only acted upon.

He further qualifies this by stating that there are sucessful books/stories about passive characters but that most effective characters are active.

Also, he's not talking about every character in the book, he's talking about the protagonist. An effective protagonist usually wants something and then takes some kind of action to either get it or to suppress that want. Hard to write a book about someone who wants nothing and does nothing to upset the flow of anything ever. Sure, it can be done, and even done well, but it's the exception, not the norm.

The only thing I find to disagree with in this excerpt is Bickham's terminology, by choosing such a loaded word as "wimp" he undermines his message.


-B

Click to expand...

Thank god. I was hoping I wouldn't have to say that. ITA with everything...except perhaps the critique of his words use. Is it loaded, in a way, but the time he's taken, in several instances, to try and clarify the very base meaning should be enough to put people at ease.

The word wimp being turned into an insult that obscures the meaning doesn't actually change the meaning. No different then coward. And granted a coward can change when the situation demands it, but at that point they have changed and you are no longer writing about a coward, you are writing about a hero, or a villian, or whatever role the now 'Active' character has taken.

Ha! I was re-reading this thread from the beginning because I couldn't remember if I'd posted to it or just bookmarked it. I was starting to craft my response because I knew there were only 16 posts and I was coming up on the end and there I was saying exactly the things I was thinking this time around, too.

bridgeburner said:

Ha! I was re-reading this thread from the beginning because I couldn't remember if I'd posted to it or just bookmarked it. I was starting to craft my response because I knew there were only 16 posts and I was coming up on the end and there I was saying exactly the things I was thinking this time around, too.

Click to expand...

Would have been funnier if you had debated with yourself and hadn't noticed On that note...Is the author trying to say all our characters must be like Connan the Barbarian?

bridgeburner said:

Ha! I was re-reading this thread from the beginning because I couldn't remember if I'd posted to it or just bookmarked it. I was starting to craft my response because I knew there were only 16 posts and I was coming up on the end and there I was saying exactly the things I was thinking this time around, too.

Click to expand...

At least you are consistent! I do like your interpretation of the author's advice.

Bianca_Sommerland said:

Would have been funnier if you had debated with yourself and hadn't noticed On that note...Is the author trying to say all our characters must be like Connan the Barbarian?

Click to expand...

Me want woman. Me take woman. Thump. *drag woman away*

I think the author is saying our protagonist, at least, should act, not be acted upon (bridgeburner said it better than this). Even the lowliest, weakest, insipid fop can make a decision and act on it.

John le Carré's George Smiley is the classic supposed whimp who gives a book its steel.

As with everything else posted as a fiction mistake thus far, I just roll my eyes.

The greatest writing comes in taking some anal-retentive critic's "mistake" and turning it inside out and making it the centerpiece of your work.

sr71plt said:

John le Carré's George Smiley is the classic supposed whimp who gives a book its steel.

As with everything else posted as a fiction mistake thus far, I just roll my eyes.

The greatest writing comes in taking some anal-retentive critic's "mistake" and turning it inside out and making it the centerpiece of your work.

Click to expand...

Tolstoy called it 'shadowing;' revealing character via its contradictions.

Isn't this the premise of I, Claudius too? (Just sit here looking like a dolt and they'll all kill each other off until they are down to me.)

And I just viewed a whole BBC Masterpiece Theater series called The Last Detective that seemed to be constructed on the premise of the presumed whimp. I thoroughly enjoyed the series.

So, rather than a "mistake," it's a literary device.

Dr. Mabeuse touched upon something from a positive direction; I would offer an opposing viewpoint.

Much of our greatly heralded fictional works since the time of Charles Dickens fall into two categories: one, the industrial age becomes the foil as the psuedo hero combats progress and, two, the loss of faith, the death of God, engendered a couple generations of 'existentialist' writers, whom I would classify as, 'wimps', because their struggle is against the meaningless of life.

I can appreciate the 'objective' definition of a hero; a romantic hero that expresses human values and morals by maintaining integrity, honesty, self esteem and loyalty as he confronts evil on all levels.

Thank you, McKenna for bringing this back.

Amicus

I'm not smart enough or literate enough to debate the author's premise. Since I'm a novice just figuring this stuff out, I find it to be a good point. I'm in the middle of writing a chapter and this very issue has me worried: are my characters just floundering? Are they making any decisions? Is there any tension? If there is, am I moving them along toward something?

Because I screwed up my story by messing with it, I am now trying to recover and I find that I'm basically working through a 'patch' chapter in order to save the outcome. I could just trash the story, but it's really a learning opportunity to bull through it.

Two weeks ago I would have just nodded as I read this; now I stop and think harder. Someday I might be such an expert I can jump on the critic bandwagon. (I can only hope! )