There's been several films with this in mind, and I can't personally say it's for the better. Instead, what you get is some kind of limbo, some half-story where a couple of - usually bland - characters battle it out on a personal plane. It can still be a good movie, with nice artistic works and directing. However, lacking a proper storyline makes the entire thing somehow less interesting, and it becomes instantly harder to follow. At the same time, making good characters is an art in itself, and I've seen few films so far that has had really believable, true characters.
This applies to literary theory, as well. It's not so much of an issue in literature as it is in films, it seems, but there must still be that kind of balance. I've read books where the characters really don't do much, but the story upholds it all. And vice versa, where the characters fulfil the criteria for a good book, but the red thread is all over the place.
Take, for instance, Isaac Asimov's robot-based books. A robot isn't exactly what you're expecting when you're looking for good characters, but it's a formula that works surprisingly well. The robots are operating off of a rigid set of rules, Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics. I won't cite them here, but go onto Wikipedia to see them in their entirety.
And this is no beating around the bush. In either case, many of the worst characters in history will have operated from similar frames. Because the Laws of Robotics makes for very predictable characters - and they work. However, this requires the same basis and centricity around the robotics that the Asimov novels do work off'f.
Yet his other characters are curiously worked out. I mean, he's not the best when it comes to characters, but they're certainly not bad. They don't distract the story, yet they don't just lie there as empty bits of stilleben either. The use of robots is quintessential for that central contrast, between man and machine and the derivate scenarios.
But it's that contrast that will serve me for the basis of my argumentation here. I realize I've rambled on a bit and I am bad at staying on course, but bear with me. Sooner or later there will be a conclusion.
Look at real-life people. They all have their quirks, their little behaviours, and they don't, they really don't do anything to an extreme. This is where I think some characters excel, and some fall to their deaths. I've seen all to many characters supported by their mere defining feature, this driven to it's very length. Have a witty character? Then each and every sentence will be spiked with sarcasm. But people just aren't that witty. It seems good, because it provides reasonably believable comic relief, and the characters serve a contrast to other characters. And I'm not saying it's a guaranteed failure to make a very witty character. But it really doesn't simulate all the mannerisms that a normal person would have.
Take me, for instance. I'll base it off'f me because I'm the only person I know well enough. I use sarcasm and irony as part of my humour, but I'm just not witty enough to do it all the time. I drink a lot of Coke, but I don't make it a central part of my personality. It's just one of those things, that I could at any suitable moment be carrying a Coke. I play quite a few computer games, but again, it's not central to who I am. My persona is a delicate mix of all of the above.
Yet use those little things to build a complete character. Even if you'd use me as a side character to the true story, it just wouldn't do to constantly place me in the background either drinking Coke, or saying something witty or whatever. These defining things can still be defining without actually using it very much at all.
No, sorry. I didn't make a very good conclusion. Ah, to hell with it. I've written the follow-up post already. And I'm sorry, but I can't be bothered with changing this one around. Sorry.
No comments:
Post a Comment