text:
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Sympathetic vs. Unsympathetic Characters
Characters. What to do with them, right? And what's the line between sympathetic and unsympathetic characters? Particularly the ones who do bad and horrible things? Why do we like some characters who do horrible things and dislike the heck out of some goody two shoes?
In this agent's opinion, it all comes down to the concept of redeemability.
Redeemability involves more than just actions. We've seen lots and lots of characters in novels and movies who do utterly horrible things and yet we love them anyway. But if characters are going to consistently do bad things and retain the reader's sympathy: they have to be likable. They have to be brave or brilliant or hilarious or charismatic or strong or all of the above. They have to possess qualities that we admire in ample quantities. We wouldn't normally like someone who eats flesh, but holy crap is that Hannibal Lecter smart and kind of hilarious.
Charisma minus actions = the redeemability meter
Now, redeemability is a fickle beast. If a character's redeemability meter dips below a certain base line, that character will "lose" the reader. We've all read moments where this happened: a character did something so horrible and shocking and irredeemable that there was no going back. We're officially done with that person. This may or may not be accompanied by flinging a book against the wall.
The redeemability meter often dips below zero when a character does something that's wrong and there is not sufficient explanation for their actions. They weren't misguided or deluded or well-intentioned-but-astray. They didn't have an excuse. They just went and did it, and the reader concludes: they're just evil. And there's no going back. The reader will make some allowances for a really likable character, but unlikability combined with unmotivated evil actions: that character has officially "lost" the reader. The worse the action the more insanely likable the character has to be.
And there are some actions that are just too far beyond the pale for even the most likable of characters, including using racial slurs and/or other powerful cultural taboos. (Oddly this does not seem to include killing people and eating their flesh. Books are weird that way.) There are also characters whose charisma level is so low it doesn't matter what good deeds they do.
It's fine for a villain to lose the reader. It's also fine for a hero to lose the reader if you're going all Greek tragedy on us and the hero is suffering for their fatal flaw in the climax.
But a protagonist, particularly a narrator, just can't lose the reader before the absolute end of the book, and maybe not even then. It's crucial crucial crucial that the protagonist, the person who the reader is most identifying with, has the reader's attention and sympathy throughout the novel. Otherwise your reader will just stop caring.
And then they'll stop reading.
113 comments:
- Ink said...
This blog has a high-redeemability factor, and so if you eat someone... yes, I'll forgive you and keep on reading. Who else makes Cormac McCarthy jokes?
- February 26, 2009 at 1:11 PM
- Lorelei Armstrong said...
Jon Clinch's _Finn_ lost me right in the middle. We're obviously dealing with a dark character; I don't have a problem with that. I love dark characters. But there in the middle of the book this main character did something particularly heinous, and it felt arbitrary. There was no reason behind it. Because the darkness was suddenly not motivated by anything more than a whim, the story lost me. I didn't finish the book.
- February 26, 2009 at 1:11 PM
I call it the 'Hannibal Lecter' effect. You may find yourself disgusted by his brutality but still marvel at his sheer genius.
- February 26, 2009 at 1:12 PM
- RW said...
I was anxious about this post until I got to your caveat about the villain. Whew. One of the major technical problems in my story is an antagonist who is a really bad guy. The risk is that he comes off like a monster and therefore not human and not believable. So I'm dealing with that--but even if he's believable, perhaps he is still irredeemable. I think you're saying, and I would agree, that's not so much a problem with the antagonist.
Still has to be believable, though. So I still have work to do!
- February 26, 2009 at 1:15 PM
- Marilyn Peake said...
Absolutely. Or on Star Trek, a character could die if they wore a red shirt. The audience was already prepared. :)
- February 26, 2009 at 1:15 PM
- Nathan Bransford said...
Well, it can be a problem for the villain as well if the reader doesn't care at all about the villain. If a villain is just pure evil: that's not often very interesting. The best villains test both the reader and the protagonist and usually possess nearly equal skills and strength. If they're purely unlikable and irredeemable it's not particularly interesting for the reader to find out who wins.
- February 26, 2009 at 1:19 PM
- Rachel said...
One of the biggest turn-offs in a protagonist, for me, is crippling insecurity. I can handle being unsure of oneself and having some awkward moments, but if a character, especially a narrator, doesn't like him or herself, I don't like them either. And I stop reading.
- February 26, 2009 at 1:21 PM
To introduce another pop culture reference-- you have the character Ben Linus on Lost. Episode after episode he does something utterly evil, but he is one of the most interesting characters on the show.
And IMO, what makes him interesting is that the show has set up that the evil things he does are for the greater good.
- February 26, 2009 at 1:22 PM
- Ink said...
Oh, and it's nice to see my fellow Canuckians well represented among all the lurky folk. What a great place this is, eh?
My best, as always,
Bryan Russell
- February 26, 2009 at 1:28 PM
- Bane of Anubis said...
Great post - one of my issues is I tend to start with protags that are unlikeable in some way or another - perhaps too much so - and then try to redeem them later... without providing enough motivation for their nature.
As for villains, they definitely need motivation. They can still be complete evil or have evolved to that, IMO (see Voldemort), but evil for just being evil probably is only doable in high fantasyish type material (though motivation is still preferred, I'd think).
- February 26, 2009 at 1:28 PM
- Travis Erwin said...
Loved this post Nathan. You did a great job of clearing the muddy waters of a difficult concept.
- February 26, 2009 at 1:32 PM
- Bane of Anubis said...
On a completely side note, Bransford, I think I've been reading your blog way too much:
I had a dream with you in it last night. You had shaved your head to stave off male pattern balding and had set yourself up beneath a canopy (one of those you might find at a car dealership or on the side of the road during a parade). I'm not sure if you were providing advice or reading tarot cards... none of that mattered b/c
you were wearing a Toronto Raptors jersey. I asked you why you weren't supporting the Kings and you seemed flummoxed, as if you didn't know who the Kings were...
Anyway, usually I have more supernatural based dreams, but this was weirder than most of those... and one I'm definitely not mentioning to the missus.
- February 26, 2009 at 1:33 PM
- Vancouver Dame said...
I've found that an unsympathetic character or villain can become more human if something happens to him that brings out our compassion, or respect. I find that villains need to be explored in depth to determine why they behave in such an anti-social manner. As for sympathetic characters, there is some element that makes us feel compassion for them, sometimes it's a flaw, or they may reiterate our own feelings. Developing character sketches helps me learn about my characters, and also suggests how they can interact to further the plot.
I believe the characters drive the plot. Another great posting, Nathan. BTW - welcome to all the lurkers who showed up on de-lurk day. Such an interesting spread of readers.
- February 26, 2009 at 1:36 PM
- Samantha Elliott said...
Nathan, from your fingers to all writers' eyes...
That saying isn't nearly as powerful when modified for the 21st century. *fail*
Also, I agree completely with Rachel. I don't associate with people in real life who don't like themselves (if I can help it). Why would I willingly read about them?
~Sam (the Still De-Lurked)
- February 26, 2009 at 1:38 PM
- Merry Monteleone said...
Okay, this is a great post, Nathan!!!
I think the biggest thing I see with newer writers, is that in the hopes of building an arc for their character they make them a bit too weak in the beginning. So what you have is a likeable enough character, but they keep making stupid mistakes or aren't strong enough for the task until midway through the novel... and if it's not done really well, with other characteristics making us root them on, we just don't want to read that far... then they become too stupid to live kind of characters.
Then there are other characters who are just too snarky or arbitrarily mean. I think in a lot of those cases the writer was going for humor, but it's just missing the mark on the page and not propped up with enough outstanding characteristics. It's okay to be a bastard if you have a little class doing it... if there's something to draw you to the character... Look at any of the Mob characters - Tony Soprano cheated on his wife continuously, screwed his friends out of businesses, killed his own nephew and yet, still rooted for him.
- February 26, 2009 at 1:38 PM
I LOVE this post. These are the things no one ever talks about.
I found it interesting when reading some Goodreads reviews last night for a very popular book that I discovered last summer. A fourth of the reviews claimed the book's characters were one-dimensional, another fourth thought they were unlikeable. I was stunned.
The characters were flawed each in their own way, but also trying their best. What the heck do readers really want? If a character has a flaw they are pegged as not-likable and if a character's personality can be described as being a "leader" or "timid" then suddenly, they are pegged as one-dimensional.
It seems like you can't win.
- February 26, 2009 at 1:40 PM
- DebraLSchubert said...
This is exactly what happened to me when I attempted to read "American Psycho" years ago. The mc, Patrick Bateman, was so despicable, I stopped reading about 2/3 of the way through. And this coming from a True Crime junkie...
- February 26, 2009 at 1:42 PM
- AC said...
Another irredeemability point: stupidity. I can handle some, but GOOD GRIEF. Some characters are just too stupid to live.
I felt like that with the MC of "An Arsonist's Guide to Writers' Homes in New England." I understand that the point is that he's not the brightest bulb, but about 1/3 of the way in, I just couldn't take it anymore and stopped reading.
- February 26, 2009 at 1:53 PM
- Just_Me said...
I've had a couple of novels I've put down mid-book because the character stopped being sympathetic, but I think it's worse with a series.
As tempted as an author is to use a cliff-hanger ending it only works if I care whether or not the character survives. Maybe they get redeemed in the next book, but I have to care enough to pay $8 and read the book.
- February 26, 2009 at 1:54 PM
TVTropes has probably a dozen tropes listed that deal with this, including Kick the Dog, Pet the Dog, Shoot the Dog, and Morality Pet, all helping to define the Moral Event Horizon.
No links because I'm sure everyone has things to do today other than read a wiki for ten hours.
- February 26, 2009 at 2:05 PM
What about Meursault in Camus's The Stranger? He's the protagonist. He has no redeemability factor. He is passive. He mades the reader feel uneasy. Yet the reader sticks with him to the very end.
Mr. Bransford, do you suppose that characters in literary fiction are subject to a different redeemability calculus than those in commerical fiction?
- February 26, 2009 at 2:11 PM
- Joel Hoekstra said...
RE: Reader said: "If a character has a flaw they are pegged as not-likable and if a character's personality can be described as being a "leader" or "timid" then suddenly, they are pegged as one-dimensional.
It seems like you can't win."
It's a delicate balance, and the scales will tip one way or the other for different readers. If you were a straight arrow in high school, reading a YA novel with a protagonist who makes poor choices via alcohol, drugs, sex, etc. might not have much appeal. If, on the other hand, you were a party animal in high school, you might totally relate to the same YA character's struggles/foibles.
The first (and only!) time I saw the movie Basic Instinct I was rooting for the serial killer most of the time because I thought all of the would-be protagonists were too stupid to live! But can sit through the occasional Jackie Chan flick and root for Jackie's character no matter how ridiculous the plot/premise, simply because I'm willing to root for the underdog (and because Chan's characters are usually up against seemingly insurmountable odds).
I'm sure for some folks, just being the underdog in a martial arts film isn't really enough to sustain their interest in a particular character. But then they're probably not going to go see a Jackie Chan flick in the first place. The point being: the flaws of your protagonist are going to be overwhelming to some and perhaps run-of-the-mill to others. You can only please some of the people some to the time. So when trying to strike a balance between "likable" and "flawed," consider your audience. Why to you find the character likable? What character flaws to you find intolerable? The audience for your story (if it has one) will hopefully be on the same page as you.
- February 26, 2009 at 2:11 PM
- Kristin Laughtin said...
I did find food a few hours later.
I was glad for the villain caveat as well, though I agree that the reader must care about the villain for it to be interesting. Others have brought up Ben Linus and Voldemort as good examples of generally unsympathetic villains, and I think the reason people are drawn to them is because they are so psychologically interesting. They have complex motivations, opportunities to change, developed backstories and personalities, and each believes that his actions are serving some greater purpose (although both are really acting rather selfishly). And they both have a redeeming moment or several: the second half of season 4 in Ben's case, and Harry's "dream" in the train station that reveals how sad and small Voldemort really is (as well as Voldemort's backstory, to a certain extent). My first thought of a despicable villain whom we should all hate, but all kinda love, was Chigurh from NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. Again, interesting psychology, especially since he seems almost robotic at times (I was waiting for him to exclaim, "Kill! Kill!").
- February 26, 2009 at 2:13 PM
- Kim Kasch said...
Oh...I'm not so sure you can't have weak characters that you don't really like. I felt that way about Bella-in the Twilight series. But when you put all the characters together and the romance-it's a fun series.
Of course I'd never want my daughter to be like Bella and date a controlling/manipulative man . . . but I enjoyed the book - and after all - it's only meant to be entertaining fiction-not real life role models.
- February 26, 2009 at 2:14 PM
- Marilyn Peake said...
I think part of the brilliance of the graphic novel Watchmen is that the author does an incredible job of developing seriously flawed superheroes, allowing the reader to gain insight into their motivations. Some of those characters are likeable, others not so much, and every one of them is seriously flawed. Set against a backdrop of politics and quantum physics, most of the characters continue to redeem themselves. The many ways in which the author redeems Jon as a sympathetic character even though he has lost most of his human characteristics is remarkable. The ways in which Jon tackles quantum physics, personal disintegration and time travel expands rather than shrinks our understanding of the universe. I found the part about Jon on Mars in which he moves comfortably throughout time as one of the most riveting parts of the book. I think that at that point his aloofness became better understood and he became a more sympathetic character.
- February 26, 2009 at 2:15 PM
- Nathan Bransford said...
Some brilliant writers are able to off the seemingly-irredeemable character just by making them seem so alive. Mersault and Humbert Humbert spring to mind.
It's one of those things where there's never a totally firm rule, but if you're going to attempt a Mersault or Humbert Humbert you'd better write like Camus or Nabokov.
- February 26, 2009 at 2:19 PM
- Loren Eaton said...
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- February 26, 2009 at 2:20 PM
- Holloway McCandless said...
By coincidence Zoe Heller discusses this very issue in today's NYT, in an interview about "The Believers":
I liked your "crucial crucial crucial" line. Interesting that Mr. Nabokov looked down on reader identification, which I suppose made it possible for him to glorify the mind of a child molester in his fiction.
- February 26, 2009 at 2:21 PM
- Loren Eaton said...
I dunno, I've never much minded unsympathetic protagonists (à la The Prestige) as long as they were interesting.
- February 26, 2009 at 2:21 PM
Oh Yeah!!!! Hurray!!! The old posting format returned while I was out with sick pets.
My daughter loves House. And he is a big rudeman most of the time.
I think that when the evil character has something interesting,they are more compelling. Also, it makes the winning more interesting.
I have been reading a book to put myself to sleep lately. It has a lot of action, but I have NO IDEA what the protagonist's motivations are. It's like he just falls into his scenes blank.
I find that boring, i.e., it is an affective sleep aid.
However, revues have raved about this fantasy writer and book.
(Or so it says on the jacket.)
- February 26, 2009 at 2:25 PM
At the outset, let me say, "Nathan is always, repeat, ALWAYS right."
But...(you knew it was coming, right?) two quandries remain for me as a reader & would-be writer.
1. I've found myself disliking main characters in many quite popular books for what may be rather minor flaws (the narrator in The Kite Runner, for example, I found so cowardly and snide, I couldn't take him. Sorry, Housseini fans. Just my experience of it). Sounds like other readers have the same reaction to weakness & timidity. How much stock should we, as writers, put in a critic's analysis of a character, given that tastes on this element are as individual as on anything else?
2. If one is writing something with a mythological bent, might simplification of a villain's character be in order? (Sure, Milton wrote a rather complicated Satan, for example, in Paradise Lost, but I'm wondering if my Bad Guy really has to have a deeper emotional motivation than lust for power.)
- February 26, 2009 at 2:26 PM
- Rick Daley said...
Great topic, thank you for your insight.
I'm waaay to analytical to let my characters get away without a motivation. My problem is explaining too much backstory for the sake of advancing the plot. I'm working hard to find the perfect balancing point.
Hannibal Lector is an great example.
Chigurh is, too. As evil as he is, though, he is thought provoking. What time do you close? No. Now is not a time...Flipping a coin. What is at stake? Everything. Just awesome phychology at play between the characters.
Dexter Morgan is another great example.
- February 26, 2009 at 2:28 PM
Bravo, Mr. Eaton. Beautifully said.
- February 26, 2009 at 2:28 PM
- Nikki Hootman said...
Nathan... have you ever played Dungeons & Dragons? Your breakdown of Charisma in this post leads me to believe you might enjoy it quite a lot... ;)
Lots of references to Lost, but I'm surprised nobody has brought up House yet. Essentially the show revolves around the guy that everyone hates but can't live without. He gets away with everything - horrifically derogatory comments, torturing his patients, nearly killing most of them... etc. etc. And yet everyone tolerates him because he's SO DAMN SMART.
And I keep watching the show because the writers continue to dangle that little, tiny, hair-thin thread of redeem-ability in front of me. I know the show couldn't continue if House ever did "break," but all the same, I always feel like he's right on the verge of seeing the light.
- February 26, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Yeah. I think that's why even though I had great personal feedback from editors and agents, everyone confessed having trouble getting behind a dulcet princess who axe-murders her parents in Chapter One. (Oh, sure, it all gets fixed in the end...but a PG re-write was definitely in order!)
I can take a hint. ;-)
- February 26, 2009 at 2:34 PM
I think people like House because he actually says what he wants to say without censoring himself.
How free would that be, even if it is rude.
- February 26, 2009 at 2:40 PM
- Jodith said...
For me, it's not so much the redeemability of characters as much as the act being "in character". I've seen so many authors that seem at loose ends in their book, so they have a character do something arbitrary just to move the story along. Those are the ones that get thrown in the corner for me. I just feel like the author was stringing me along all this time telling me one thing and then doing something totally opposite for no good reason.
I remember one book (can't remember the name off the top of my head) where the character killed herself in the end. Now, the character was seriously selfish all the way through the book, but she was also a strong, self-assured character. The ending to me just seemed a rip-off, because this was a character I just couldn't see taking the easy way out. I never read another book by that author. It felt to me like she'd written her way into a corner and took an easy way out instead of dealing with the issue and rewriting to get to a believable conclusion.
- February 26, 2009 at 2:44 PM
- Dara said...
Perhaps it's just me, but I'm not a fan of the whole "anti-hero" protagonist. I have a hard time ever sympathizing with them, even if they have redeemable moments. If they never seem to learn from those moments and continuously act evil, I stop reading (or watching the movie) or I characterize the book as less than satisfying if I end up finishing it.
Of course, I like a somewhat balanced antagonist. I think there's more believability if he's got actual motivations behind his actions rather than just acting on a whim. I should probably take my own advice though and work on this applying this aspect to my antagonist, who probably comes off a bit too close to pure evil. I need to clarify his motivations and establish some sort of connection.
- February 26, 2009 at 2:46 PM
- Roland said...
I'll take this chance to vent my strongest gripe with The Oscar winning shlockfest, Slumdog Millionaire.
The brother in this film is such a perfect example of an unsympathetic character. Here's a guy that has no personality save for selfish jerkiness and who endlessly commits horrendous acts throughout the film like... um ... raping his younger brother's girlfriend and selling her to a crime lord.
And yet the writers decided to give him a completely unwarranted moment of redemption at the end of the film. Wh...what?
There are characters that make bad choices and then there are characters that are unapologetically evil starting from birth and ending in a bathtub full of cash. I get it. He was obsessed with money and that's why he acted the way he did.
Ok, you still wanted him to get it in the worst way. And honestly I wanted the girl to be an instrument in his destruction. Of course the only reason the girl is in the film at all is to look pretty and be saved by a man, any man ("I'm sorry about cutting your face off the other day, I'm not like that anymore for some reason, run!"
"S'ok, I'm not really a person as is demonstrated by my not doing or saying anything in the entire movie").
Some movies have plot holes. Slumdog was hurt by character holes.
To stay topical, you can compare the brother in Slumdog to another Oscar winner - The Wrestler. Here's a great example of how to do it right. This guy is a total loser that abandoned his daughter, and well, I just loved him. You can't not like him. And not just because Micky Rourke is a relentlessly charming maniac, but because the character was actually well-written.
Ok, livejournal-style rant over.
- February 26, 2009 at 2:47 PM
- Merry Monteleone said...
I think it's interesting that so many people are pointing out popular fiction where characters have come across as unlikeable - and I agree with some of them. I think that's another layer to fiction that's absent in most other things - it's subjective. The reader's sensibilities are as paramount as the writer's for the novel to resonate.
Interesting that Mr. Nabokov looked down on reader identification, which I suppose made it possible for him to glorify the mind of a child molester in his fiction.
I don't think he looked down on reader identification - in fact, he took great pains to buffer himself from the character by relaying Humbert Humbert through another narrator. It's likely that Nabokov felt it was compelling to tell a side of the story that wasn't often seen.
I have to say, Lolita was one I threw against the radiator multiple times. I wouldn't have finished it at all if it's wasn't assigned to a group of us, and therefore I'd be sinking everyone's grade by not finishing. But, it was the subject matter, which he didn't flinch from at all - his writing was breathtaking. But yeah, I hated the character... and yeah, I think we were supposed to... but we were also supposed to understand him.
- February 26, 2009 at 2:47 PM
- Sarah said...
So many good comments! (Marilyn, your Redshirts comment made me laugh- the person you know is gonna die to prove the situation is serious.)
Ditto about weak or stupid characters. I love Anne Elliot in Persuasion. I suppose that outwardly she'd seem weak, but there was so much going on inside that I never thought of her that way.
Ditto #2 about evil, but interesting characters.
For me, I'll stick with an evil character if I respect them on some level, if a compliment from them would mean something. If Hannibal thought I was a worthy opponent? Creepy, but I'd definitely take it.
- February 26, 2009 at 2:47 PM
- Lara said...
The incredibly cheesy but irresistible 80's writer Judith Krantz wrote excellent villains. They'd have these very human flaws -- greed/ fear of poverty, fear of illness, stuff like that -- and she'd have them going about their business until the adorable protagonist comes along and happens to have diametrically opposed goals. I also think Ira Levin was good at villains. A villain can just be somebody who wants something that the hero doesn't want.
- February 26, 2009 at 2:48 PM
- Neil said...
Good advice. The other thing that irks the living piss out of me is when the protagonist doesn't seem particularly quick on the uptake, or doesn't ask that really obvious question. That's what gets on my nerves about Lost: nobody ever grabs the bad guy/entity and says, 'Never mind your bullshit! What the hell are we doing here?!'. Heroes (particularly in first-person narrated tales) who don't think as fast as their readers are infuriating, and in my opinion that affects their redeemability, too.
- February 26, 2009 at 2:49 PM
I have also been really turned off by several books that read from the point of view of the main character
when that character's attitudes are snippy, self-important, or racially biased.
It is a risky way to try to get sympathy.
I think, when I, as the reader, am not expected to "agree with" snippy attitudes, self-importance of a character, their racial bias, etc.
that I am more sympathetic to the overall story even if those are that character's traits.
- February 26, 2009 at 2:49 PM
- Mira said...
This is interesting.
And I agree with your post, Nathan, about charisma and reedemability.
I think the other thing that can make evil characters sympathetic is if they are in some type of emotional pain. Their 'evilness' stems from the 'evil' choices they make to get out of that pain.
We identify with their pain, and with the difficulty of making those choices.
Sweeney Todd comes to mind. Almost every character in it makes horrendous choices. But since each character make that choice in an attept to feed some terrible yearning for something - justice, love, security, sex - almost every character in it is very sympathetic.
We all know what it's like to yearn for something that is denied to us. So, we feel sympathy for characters that do as well.
Even if that means they end up eating people.
- February 26, 2009 at 2:50 PM
- Marilynn Byerly said...
Giving House a cane and a bad leg was a stroke of genius because it made a brilliant sociopath vulnerable, and vulnerability makes a character more sympathetic.
I'm not a fan of unsympathetic protags or villains because a character who isn't sympathetic is one-dimensional, and that's bad writing.
- February 26, 2009 at 2:51 PM
- Hilabeans said...
Great post.
I find that books I relate to the most are ones where the protagonist makes enormous mistakes. For example, as a kid, the first book I truly fell in love with (besides the standards of Jane Eyre, Pride & Prejudice, and Emma) was a book titled Ratha's Creature about pre-historic cats. Stick with me here – I know I may have lost some of you. The protagonist faces an immense amount of conflict and then reacts in a very jarring way: she attacks her own cubs before leaving them alone in the wild. The suffering she deals with afterward (I still get a little choked up *sniff*) seems so real. Although you HATE what Ratha did, you still love her. You feel connected with her, sympathetic even. Yes, I am in tune with pre-historic cats. My point is, Ratha's redeemability factor registers very high.
Again, great post – love character analysis.
- February 26, 2009 at 2:56 PM
- Bane of Anubis said...
For me, shows like House are too hard to stomach. If you're going to tackle a subject in a quasi-real way, the characters need to be more believable... I'm sure there are people like House; even some surgeons have similar personalities... but no doctor exhibits that type of bedside manner on a continual basis - they'd be sued constantly; no matter how good they are, they'd be out of a job.
If a story is supposed to be set in the realm of reality, I need realistic characters. Caricatures may draw more attention and may be more exciting to create, but when the motivation or back story is developed to explain the character's cartoonish nature, I find myself rolling my eyes more often than not.
I'm too analytical about it, I'm sure, but come on... people like House become Radiologists or Pathologists.
- February 26, 2009 at 2:57 PM
- Rita Arens said...
I think the protagonist has to be authentic. Some effective protagonists are authentically confused or brainwashed, but as long as they believe they're doing the right thing for whatever reason, it's okay. As for the comment about intellect, I think that authenticity element can overcome it: I'm thinking of Flowers for Algernon. What a powerful book, and yet half of it was narrated by a mentally retarded protagonist.
Really, it's just hard to be talented enough to pull it off.
- February 26, 2009 at 2:58 PM
- Carley said...
Nathan, you are dead right on this one. Even in real life, aren't girls always attracted to the bad boys, for whatever reason? I like making my villians bad, but in a cool way, so the reader is enthralled by them, then finds that they are rooting for them, maybe just a little. Not to say that the MC isn't wonderful, and you've quit hoping for their victory either-what a balancing act!
- February 26, 2009 at 2:59 PM
- Rachel said...
Regarding what Kim Kasch said, "weak" characters can definitely be fun and sympathetic. Bella in Twilight was one of them. Despite her insecurities, she was spunky and strong-willed. I do have problems, though, with characters who hate themselves. Bridget Jones...chick lit...
- February 26, 2009 at 3:01 PM
- Bane of Anubis said...
Roland, the brother in Slumdog wasn't evil or even unsympathetic... I think the movie did an excellent job of establishing the character arc. The brother did what he had to do to survive - a more likely arc than the MC. From the beginning, the brother was shown as selfish, but had revelatory moments where he showed his deep loyalty toward his brother (e.g., when the MC was going to be blinded by the gang boss)...
I was a bit conflicted by the whole let's slash her and then help her escape, but I've always been a sucka for the Darth Vader moments in stories... as, I'd guess, many people are.
- February 26, 2009 at 3:02 PM
I confess that the bad guy, Sylar, in Heroes is so much fun to watch as he is changing and growing. He can't help being endowed with his bad nature, but there is something happening in him.
Characters you start out hating that get you to love them are really so much fun!
Quark in Deep Space Nine was one of those for me. And Dr. Archie Morris on ER started out as a pot smoking slacker and then was able to sing beautifully in the Christmas concert when no one else could, and in spite of three nipples, became a babe magnet, a friend to children, and completely sympathetic.
- February 26, 2009 at 3:02 PM
Great post, and talk about timely. I've just started an edit where my main challenge is to increase the reader's sympathy with the narrator. I'm not sure if my approach to tackling this comes under 'redeemability', but I'm going to try and increase the reader's understanding of the narrator's motivations; psychology, in other words. Because clearly the narrator doesn't lose my sympathy - or else how could I write him? - but I've not yet got that understanding across to the reader.
I think the most unsympathetic narrator I've ever read is Brett Easton Ellis' Patrick Bateman in American Psycho. It wasn't an enjoyable experience.
- February 26, 2009 at 3:06 PM
- Roy Hayward said...
I don't know about the whole "redeemable" part of the equation. For me, when the author/character loses me is when they do stupid unexplainable things. You describe this as the character goes pure evil. Yet I don't find Mr. Lecter very redeemable, and mostly evil. Yet his character is captivating. My self analysis is that I am kept because he does interesting things.
On the other hand, I sometime toss books when the characters, say, wander into obviously dangerous situations for prosaic reasons. Especially if they survive long.
Some of the best, most compelling, captivating characters are villains that are completely unreedemable, and don't even desire redemption. But they do clever things to accomplish the goals and realize what motivates them.
This boils down to why I don't watch Hollywood Horror movies. I am glad when the guy who goes off alone in the spooky woods gets eaten by the monster. He deserved it.
But the guy who drowns others to escape with the loot. I can see that, from his perspective, this rational. So I keep going.
So I don't know if this makes me cold and heartless. But as a reader, I sympathize more with a rational character that does bad things, than I do with brainless character that does angelic things.
- February 26, 2009 at 3:07 PM
Hmm, okay de-lurking a day late!
Here's another TV reference - in "24", you have Jack Bauer who is the protag/a good guy who does "bad things" for "good reasons."
- February 26, 2009 at 3:15 PM
Battlestar Galactica makes fascinating characters out of human-race-ending, killing machines by: making a few of them love humans, showing their strange religious motivations, and choosing very attractive actors to play them.
It makes me wonder...do we always like villains more if they are good-looking?
- February 26, 2009 at 3:22 PM
- Sarah Jensen said...
Bane--I love that dream! Sounds like the weird dreams I always have. Though none with Nathan. Yet. I probably will now. Heehee
- February 26, 2009 at 3:26 PM
- Emily Cross said...
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- February 26, 2009 at 3:27 PM
- Walter said...
This is one of those many instances where literature refelcts reality. There's a certain truth to this in the real world. People may b eless likely to admit in a real person than they would a character, but there is a point to which charisma can bring someone beyond any failings. Politicians are a great example of both times when this works and times when it doesn't.
- February 26, 2009 at 3:28 PM
- Liz said...
I think Ms. Rowling managed this very well with Snape. She very nearly dipped below the zero line with Harry in one of the books where he's an insufferable whiney little wanker. You had to cut the kid a lot of slack for what he's going through and becoming a teenager at the same time.
- February 26, 2009 at 3:30 PM
- Bane of Anubis said...
Liz - Snape was definitely a great character and I agree with the whiny-ness factor... a symptom, I believe, of JKR's severe case of serialitis starting in book 4 that, unfortunately, was never cured.
- February 26, 2009 at 3:36 PM
- Mira said...
I agree with the point about vulnerability, too.
One of the reasons I think we find Hanibal Lector sympathetic is because he is locked up for life, and being treated abusively by guards.
- February 26, 2009 at 3:39 PM
- Hilabeans said...
Lupina -
Yes, I love good-looking bad guys.
But I wonder, do you think some villains are hot simply because they're villains? Hmm...
Someone mentioned Sylar from "Heroes" - there is something kind of sexy about him as the tortured villain. But he does need to control those eyebrows (just my opinion).
- February 26, 2009 at 3:39 PM
- Justus M. Bowman said...
Excellent post.
- February 26, 2009 at 3:54 PM
- ryan field said...
I think trying to maintain a conscious sense of objectivity is important.
- February 26, 2009 at 3:55 PM
- Henry said...
This discussion is missing something: The main protagonist in a book is the writer, not the characters: the writer is the driving force behind the book. Books aren't just a bunch of stuff that happens, it's about how the stuff is expressed, how those sentences are constructed. And the emphasis on likability or redemption or other publishing buzzwords overlooks the importance of what the author is saying beyond the book's action, which is really the most superficial part of a novel - if the novel's any good.
But here someone says Lolita is about "child molesting." If you're that much of a hyper-literalist and don't read between the lines, then maybe how the writer expresses something doesn't matter.
- February 26, 2009 at 4:11 PM
- Marilyn Peake said...
Fascinating discussion.
I think that, in movies and TV shows, the visual element allows a lot of room to play with good and evil and add depth to characters. In Heroes, after Sylar has already started to show some desire to rehabilbitate himself, the scene in which he's wearing an apron and making pancakes for his son is hilarious because the visuals are in extreme contrast to his earlier history. Same thing for the characters in Kill Bill - all the scenes of typical suburban life are in such stark contrast to the violent lives the ninja-type assassins lead, the contrast rounds out the characters with a great deal of humor.
Another interesting aspect of characters ... What about when inanimate objects take on the role of a character, e.g. the house in Mark Z. Danielewski's novel, House of Leaves? That house is nuts. Sometimes, it's a warm, homey place to be. Other times, it's a freakin' nightmare out to destroy everyone who steps inside.
- February 26, 2009 at 4:26 PM
- Merry Monteleone said...
The main protagonist in a book is the writer, not the characters: the writer is the driving force behind the book.
Only if the book is memoir or autobiography. While many great authors discuss elements from their real lives or thoughts, or great themes they wanted to address through the writing of fiction - you can never assume a work of fiction to have direct reference to the author's life unless the author actually states that. Sometimes it's just fiction. Readers overanalyzing the fiction in a way that makes assumptions about the author is a good way to make many authors censor themselves for fear of being misrepresented.
And Humbert Humbert was a child molester. There are other layers to the novel, but they don't make that statement any less accurate.
- February 26, 2009 at 4:27 PM
- Stuart Neville said...
I walked exactly this tightrope with the protagonist in my soon-to-be-published novel. He's a killer. And not any kind of romantic, principles killer. Like William Munny from Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven (a brilliant example of a monster made human), my protagonist has killed men, women and children. The novel is essentially his struggle to put it right. He just happens to put it right by killing more people.
As it happens, I've just returned from my first ever public reading, at my local library. I read the first chapter, which spells out the horror of what my character has done. I was deeply conscious of what I was putting front of these kind people; they weren't crime or thriller readers, just ordinary folks who like books, so I was worried how they would take this character.
As far as I could tell, they took to him well.
I think the key is putting the reader right behind the eyes of your monster, let them see the world as he sees it. Evil does not know its own reflection. If your reader is truly in the mindset of the character, then they will not see the reflection either.
- February 26, 2009 at 4:30 PM
- T. Anne said...
Nathan I found your response to RW above very interesting. Finding the balance is the ultimate goal but never-the-less it can feel like splitting hairs when it comes to execution.
- February 26, 2009 at 4:34 PM
- Nathan Bransford said...
T. Anne-
And as the differing responses to LOLITA, House, AMERICAN PSYCHO and others show, it can be a highly personal equation.
Some people have been disagreeing by pointing to "interesting" characters -- I think this is another way of describing the interplay between charisma and motivation. Characters like Ben Linas aren't interesting because they're dumb, strange, and antisocial, they're interesting because they can be charismatic and clever. And when we understand why they act the way they do, even if they do things like Ben did last night, you still are fascinated and wonder what he's going to do next.
- February 26, 2009 at 4:39 PM
- Marilyn Peake said...
Do you think that fiction sometimes holds the attention of readers/viewers because it's holding out the possibility of redemption like a carrot-and-stick? If Ben Linus turns out to be doing so much evil for evil purposes, he may lose the interest of the viewers; but Lost seems to be in the hands of such capable writers, I doubt they would do that before the end of his story. And, if he turns out to be doing everything for some greater good ... well, that's one of the reasons viewers have been giving him the benefit of the doubt.
- February 26, 2009 at 4:47 PM
- Hilabeans said...
ABC should pay you for all your Bachelor and Lost plugs. ;)
- February 26, 2009 at 4:53 PM
- Bane of Anubis said...
That's the rub with TV shows, particularly of the ensemble and/or serial variety like Lost (which despite the numerous jump the shark moments, is nicely paced, plotted, twisted, and, above all else, characterized) - it's a lot easier to develop a characters up and downs - and even if you don't like him or her, there are other characters to whom you can relate... The window of opportunity in a book is much smaller unless you're a front-shelf author who has legionary devotion.
- February 26, 2009 at 4:55 PM
- Furious D said...
My first novel had a character who was really a nice guy who always tried to do the right thing. Now his attempts to do the right thing ruins his life, and forces him to fight for survival and save the day. (It was sort of a "no good deed goes unpunished" sort of fable.)
My second novel featured a really unpleasant character. In fact the first words in the novel was another character describe him as a monster. And during the novel he does terrible things, but there lies the rub. My anti-hero does all these terrible things, but they're all to either protect the citizens of his small kingdom, and ultimately to save the galaxy. Plus his personal life was horrendously unhappy, being a bitter and lonely man whose only true love shot him in the face. So while he did terrible things, there was both an element of redemption and punishment to his life.
- February 26, 2009 at 5:03 PM
- Roland said...
Bane of Anubis,
The brother saving MC felt like a character-hole. I wanted to buy it, but of course he reverts to jerky little creep immediately by intentionally leaving the girl behind. Ok, so he only cares about his brother and no one else, but wait he does a bunch of crappy things to MC after the orphanage. They never showed a reason for his cruelty or for his sudden and brief changes of heart. The thing is, as soon as a writer decides to investigate what makes a character such a piece of garbage it becomes so easy to show that same character's desire to change and act sympathetically.
- February 26, 2009 at 5:06 PM
- Holloway McCandless said...
Ouch! I've never been called a "hyper-literalist" before. But what I "literally" posted was that VN "glorified the mind of" old Humby, which seems to agree somewhat with Henry's post about expression vs. action, though characters can only exist through thought, dialogue and action (cf Henry James "What is character but the determination of incident?" etc). And because I'm on a quoting jag, here's VN: "Literature is not a pattern of ideas but a pattern of images." (From his "Lectures on Russian Literature") VN does a pretty good job of giving us images of what happens to Lolita in those motel rooms, not just the incredible language in HH's head, or the desire that drives HH.
- February 26, 2009 at 5:08 PM
- Marilyn Peake said...
"Literature is not a pattern of ideas but a pattern of images."
Love that quote. Literature involves so many moving parts, I think that some parts can be minimized if other parts are done well. Literary novels that include beautiful use of language and perceptive focus on characters can succeed without much plot. Other books succeed primarily on the basis of plot alone. Danielewski created House of Leaves as an experimental novel in which the pattern of print on each page reflected the action in the story, an attempt to create in the novel some of the effects inherent in film.
- February 26, 2009 at 5:31 PM
- Mira said...
Re. the quote by Henry 1:11, I have to agree with him:
"The main protagonist in a book is the writer, not the characters: the writer is the driving force behind the book."
I think that any book is actually the writer's unconscious working things out. All the characters represent a piece of his psyche, and they interact with one another.
We all face trying to integrate the different aspects of our character, and any good piece of fiction illustrates this is symbolic form.
It's literally impossible for a writer to create a character that isn't a part of himself.
No one can truly know what it is like to be someone else, although we can guess, study and empathisize - the ultimate perspecive is only and will always only be our own.
Until they invent mind-reading.
Beyond that, there's the concept of 'voice.' When you read a book, beyond the characters and the story, you are aware that someone is telling you that story. That's always the real person talking to you, the real main character - the author.
- February 26, 2009 at 5:40 PM
- Marilyn Peake said...
This topic is waaaaaay too interesting. I need to figure out how to go into lurk mode...poof!, just like a ninja.
- February 26, 2009 at 5:49 PM
- Mira said...
I know, Marilyn.
When I first read this topic, I thought, hmmm, Nathan covered it well, do we really have anything to talk about?
But I think we do! :-)
- February 26, 2009 at 5:54 PM
- Merry Monteleone said...
Hi Mira,
I can't speak for all writers and I'm sure some writers are much more autobiographical than others. While I get what you're saying, if it's true that all voice is really the author (and I have a problem with referring to the author as the main protag - it's not the same thing), but if it was true that all voice is really the author, then why do so many writers manage over long careers to write very different characters in very different works, crossing genres and using various dialects, etc.?
While it may be true that some writers work the way you suggest, I don't think you can blanket that statement across all authors and their work. And when you tell me that what I'm writing is working out some deep personal issue, it marginalizes my ability to create the world I'm striving for accurately.
There is a buffer between Nabokov and Humbert Humbert for this reason, I think. And I think all authors should be afforded that privacy - that the work stands on its own, as a reflection of the author's writing ability - yes, but a reflection of their morals and values? Their own deep fears and wants? I don't think that's a fair thing to foist on someone simply because they can writing fiction well and believably. If the author says their work is autobiographical, that's one thing - saying they must be is over-reaching by the literary critic.
And the other thing here, that no one seems to be touching on: Reader responsibility. The reader's own perceptions, life, and experiences do as much to color the story as what a writer purposely puts into the work. To me, believing the author to be the main protagonist, to be of paramount importance, diminishes the role of reader. Without readers, authors don't have anyone to communicate with - and it is communication, the goal being to make the reader feel and experience.
The whole line of viewing the author as the driving force bothers me because it diminishes the very real contribution of the reader. I think the best writers are humble enough to know that once their words are out there, they belong as much to the reader as they do to the author (not monetarily of course, but in thought).
My thinking on this may be different than yours, or a lot of peoples'. But then, if my thinking on this is different, than the blanket statement on author's motives can't be correct for every author, either.
- February 26, 2009 at 6:24 PM
Bathan, I have a kind of random (but important!) question to ask you: Is it ever ok to send an agent a partial when they request a full? For whatever reason-- is that a big no-no in the agent world?
- February 26, 2009 at 6:27 PM
- Nathan Bransford said...
I think you can answer that one on your own.
- February 26, 2009 at 6:28 PM
Anon 11:40 said:
"...I think people like House because he actually says what he wants to say without censoring himself..."
I agree, and I think too, with House, he is shown as being vulnerable and that makes him likable. He has no friends, is awful at the game of love. Out of loneliness he's slept with a prostitute, and also erased the phone message where the cancer doc had a offer to move in somewhere else. He wanted him to stay but didn't know how to ask. That's all very sympathetic
- February 26, 2009 at 6:30 PM
- Taire said...
MB you nailed it. It is the vulnerability of the villain that gets us. We really want him to die, he deserves it. We can see that he will suffer too, when somebody else makes him pay for what he has done. So very satisfying.
- February 26, 2009 at 6:42 PM
- John Darrin said...
Harry Flashman, the protagonist of the book series by George MacDonald Fraser, is a great example of a truly unlikable character that you like. He is a liar, cheat, philanderer, coward, and general all-around scoundrel, but he is a lot of fun, and despite his inclinations, things somehow turn out well.
- February 26, 2009 at 6:53 PM
- Roy Hayward said...
I have to agree with Merry on this. There are so many ways and methods to use when writing and finding your characters voices. I think that making a blanket statements, "The main protagonist in a book is the writer" or "any book is actually the writer's unconscious working things out."
For me, I use a great deal of imagination when I write fiction. I think that some people write from their own persona's, and some people write from research and observation, and so forth.
But if you read a book and then think that you know some deep secrets about the authors psyche or emotional make up, you are both insulting the author and diminishing the art.
Hmmm. That sounds harsh. If so, then I apologize. But its a pet peeve that I have been accused of before. I am not my job. The things that I am are greater than the things that I do/write.
- February 26, 2009 at 6:55 PM
- Cloudscudding said...
I read an interesting article about how to keep a character sympathetic even when they're doing Very Bad Things. Key tricks involve showing them having doubts and showing other characters liking them. In fiction as in life, we are more likely to empathize with characters that we see other people empathizing with. Having the character show affection towards others, including pets, is also a biggie. My work in progress has a character who has to do terrible, awful things to nice people for all the right reasons, so I'm going to be pulling out all the stops to keep him likable, up to and including the use of cute, fuzzy animals.
- February 26, 2009 at 6:56 PM
- Mira said...
Hi Roy and Merry,
Nice to meet and chat with you.
Sadly, I realized I'm all argued out from earlier in the week. Shoot. It's too bad, I usually love a good argument, and you make some juicy points I'd love to chew on.
I will say, briefly, in my defense, I was talking about the psychological process involved in writing a story, not motivation or depth of imagination.
With that, maybe Henry or someone else will take up the counter-point to the argument.
Or not. It's good to have different perspectives on things.
Even if, ultimately, I am always right.
Just kidding.
(not really.) :-)
- February 26, 2009 at 7:57 PM
- Mira said...
"The things that I am are greater than the things that I do/write."
Amen to that, Roy.
Completely agree with that.
- February 26, 2009 at 7:59 PM
- StrugglingToMakeIt said...
This post is both helpful and timely. I've been puzzling a lot lately over why some beta readers and others who critique my ms don't love my protag. I can see it more clearly now. I guess unless I expect my readers to read my mind as well as my pages, I have some fleshing out to do...
- February 26, 2009 at 8:17 PM
- Vancouver Dame said...
Well said, Merry, your points are excellent. I agree with your comments about the relationship between author and reader.
General statements are just not applicable when there are so many variants that come into play when we create our stories and our characters. Readers will always be subjective about why they like a particular character, regardless of the character traits given them by the writer.
- February 26, 2009 at 8:28 PM
- Diana said...
Nice post, Nathan! Thanks for giving me something new to ponder today.
My friends and I feel this way about Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark. You can make a pretty long list of hideous traits (sexist pig being pretty high on the list) and yet every woman I know who's seen Iron Man LOVES him.
On the other hand, I recently read a romance where I disliked the heroine so much that I actually felt bad that the hero got her in the end. He could have done so much better.
- February 26, 2009 at 8:29 PM
- Michael said...
I don't think it has much to do with redeemability and a lot to do with motivation.
If an evil character is motivated by something the reader understands and identifies with, then the reader will like that character. Look at a lot of the comments..."I liked him until he did something heinous and arbitrary...there was no reason for it".
Evil+reasons you understand = likeable
Evil+reasons you don't understand = hated
Honestly, who wanted Darth Vader to reedem himself, strip off his awesome black suit and become a wimpy jedi knight? We loved him because he was a total badass, yet was motivated by things we understood.
A tragedy factor also helps a lot.
- February 26, 2009 at 9:44 PM
- Laini Taylor said...
I always think of Vic Mackey from TV's The Shield as a great example of a terrible character who you can't help liking, even though he has done things so heinous you shouldn't be able to like him AT ALL. So well written -- and acted. The Wire is full of characters that walk that fine line too. Why can I only think of TV examples and not books? I read. I swear :-)
- February 27, 2009 at 12:18 AM
- Mystery Robin said...
I concur. I put down a highly acclaimed mystery after the protag did something unconscionable. And for me (a mother of 3) it was not coming home while his wife was miscarrying a baby. That was it. It didn't matter that he didn't totally get what was going on. She was pregnant. He should have gone home. There was no going back.
And yet I can forgive Jack Bauer all manner of sins - he was there for his wife when she was in trouble!
- February 27, 2009 at 1:22 AM
- -Ann said...
I'm on a big Friday Night Lights kick for the last two months. Not only is it a fabulous show just to watch, it's like a master class in story telling and character development.
Tim Riggins is, for me, the pinnacle of what you're talking about with likability and redeemability. He's totally messed up and makes all kinds of horrible choices but he's got so much heart and potential. (And okay, okay, the fact that he's ridiculously hot helps, but it wouldn't be enough if he wasn't also a good person inside.)
- February 27, 2009 at 2:08 AM
- the Amateur Book Blogger said...
This is really helpful.
"This may or may not be accompanied by flinging a book against the wall."
Sure hope you're not reading it on a Kindle at this point....
- February 27, 2009 at 8:00 AM
- Stef Kramer said...
Do you think we are compelled by evil characters because perhaps a teeny part of our being can identify with a certain flaw? I often asked myself what intrigued me about Heathcliff and Cathy. And why do I keep rooting for Darth Vader? (Was it because he was such a good-looking Anakin Skywalker?) Those characters are complex and interesting because their evil actions seemed to somewhat motivated by their warped sense of love.
Anyway, fun discussion item.
- February 27, 2009 at 8:57 AM
- Ajax said...
I love some of the examples presented here, I loved Nabokov's treatment of Humbert Humbert, and I am a Thomas Harris fan as well, and I have 79 episodes of HOUSE DVR'd. Confessions all. But having a sympathetic villain, as some have mentioned above, IMHO is key. I am surprised we have not heard from LOTR fans here, especially after the Vader reference. GOLLUM/Smeagol has to be the most sympathetic villain of all time. I think Tolkien almost went over the top to make sure that we as readers understood that he should be pitied. But redeemable? Gollum? Hmmmmm….
A final morsel for thought... What if your likeable character does something terrible? My MC sets off a bomb that kills a pile of civilians and women and children. My character is emotionally distraught over it and may never recover. He has erroneously over mixed some chemicals and the bomb is too powerful. So read accidental LARGE explosion. Should I have this happen at the end, or early on so he has to deal with it throughout the story? I kind of thought of this scene as the climax, but I do want people to read the next book I write! ;) (And this one when I finish.)
- February 27, 2009 at 9:52 AM
- Taylor K. said...
Definitely one of your better post, Nathan. I think over this issue quite a bit as well, especially when it comes to villains. While it is sometimes the case I have trouble thinking most villains are bad just to be bad. A lot of the time, as with the war against terrorism in our own lives, the bad guys actually think they are good. Why do they think this? What motivates them? It's a complex question that can apply to all villains.
Vampires is a simple example. Most (Until recently, that is) see them as bad because they kill people, but vampires don't kill people just to be evil (in most cases). They do it because they have to in order to live. Same with the carnivorous animals in stories. The raptors in Jurassic Park didn't want to eat Dr. Grant because they were evil, but because they were hungry. Given logical minds would they view their hunting of prey as noble as humans often do?
Simple examples, I know, but I think they help prove my point. Villains who view themselves as good, or who even have what they consider noble motivations, are often far more interesting than those who are just evil. This is why Dexter is able to carry a whole show on his own.
- February 27, 2009 at 9:58 AM
I think we are not allowed to be evil or bad ourselves, so we project some of it vicariously out onto the evil or badass characters and satisfy the element. It is allowed in *fantasy* but not permitted in reality.
We all have an ability to feel a full range of emotions.
Our safeguards keep us from acting out from criminal or socially unacceptable or unethical reactions.
(Thank goodness.)
And our good impulses react inside of us often passionately against the evil character who does and is able to act out his badness.
But on some level, we have our bad *fantasies* and they can be thrilling or disgusting or both.
In some cases, we walk away and separate from bad characters and we should.We are too evolved for them to interest or thrill us. In other instances, they are like that BAD CAT Bucky and we need him in the room.
And Roy,
I totally agree about how annoying it is when someone thinks your FICTION is about you, the writer.
That's a deal breaker in a writers' group.
- February 27, 2009 at 11:49 AM
Re: Iron Man -- Robert Downey Jr. OOZES charisma and intelligence. I think he could play any villain and I'd like him.
And I have to agree with Roland on the subject of "Slumdog Millionaire." Some of the characters were totally inconsistent, IMHO, and the romance was just thrown in and had no real emotional resonance.
How come "The Visitor" didn't win or even get nominated? Now THERE'S a convincing character arc where the MC is redeemed.
- February 27, 2009 at 11:56 AM
I think Gollum was the perfect portrayal of the hopeless addict completely seduced by his addiction, while waves of his previous humanity surface for bare moments making us realize the cost.The movie portrayal made him even more sympathetic, even dear at times. He could have once been a real boy.
- February 27, 2009 at 12:29 PM
I read my first novel, a murder mystery, to my sister while we were on a long car trip. She loved it until it was revealed that the murderer was her favorite character, she was pissed. Lesson learned.
- February 27, 2009 at 2:10 PM
- JLR said...
I have an anti-hero, so this is of particular interest to me. My goal is to show sympathy in small things he does or about him from the get-go. Also, I try to give a good reason for why he does the things he does. I also add in other reasons for a reader to be intrigued by him, to keep interest in him high.
So it's extra work and an extra struggle to keep him sympathetic enough, but my character and his story is worth it in the end.
- February 27, 2009 at 6:30 PM
- Merry Monteleone said...
But if you read a book and then think that you know some deep secrets about the authors psyche or emotional make up, you are both insulting the author and diminishing the art.
Exactly! And well said.
I totally agree about how annoying it is when someone thinks your FICTION is about you, the writer.
That's a deal breaker in a writers' group.
Yep, yep. It's intrusive, that line of thinking and there are enough reasons for a writer to pull back for fear without lending credence to the idea that their fiction is a statement on their person. What if I wanted to write about a serial killer, or date rapist, or well any other of a myriad of unsympathetic characteristics? Who would tackle those stories if they were assured that the vast majority of readers would mistake them with their characters?
It was nice to meet and chat with you, too.
I will say, briefly, in my defense, I was talking about the psychological process involved in writing a story, not motivation or depth of imagination.
This statement was the exact thing I was disagreeing with, and still do. I loved literary analysis in high school and college - and still do in literary discussions. It's fun for mental gymnastics to decipher many layers that may or may not have been intentionally drawn into a work. And I understand the draw to comparing an author's life with their work.
Sometimes there's vast reasons to suppose that the story works out personal issues. Certainly that case has been made by many literati on some of the classics. But it's a supposition, not a fact. I can't agree with armchair psychology for every work of every writer, and while specific cases may lend some merit to the exercise, I think the intrusiveness of trying to maintain this thesis as a blanket to cover all writer's psychological process is both wrong and dangerous. Especially if you're a writer.
Likely we're not going to agree on this. But thanks for the discussion.
- February 28, 2009 at 1:49 PM
- Trashy Cowgirl said...
I loved this post. My current protag is what I would call an anti-heroine. She's an alcoholic, exotic dancer who always makes the wrong decision and consistently lets the male hero down, yet I have received an enormous ammount of comments saying that they don't think my protag is an anti-heroine, because she is too likeable. But heck, I loved Duddy Kravitz and he was a world class schumuck. You don't have to be a hero/ heroine to be likeable.
When it comes to lit, sometimes it just feels good to root for the person who doesn't do the right thing. My theory is that we seek to find oursleves in characters. They can act out th ethings we fear to do ourselves, or mirror the things that we have blundered. And, you are right Nathan, as long as those characters can still be redeemed from their actions, or still appear crafty at least, there is hope for the rest of us mere mortals.
- February 28, 2009 at 7:08 PM
- Grym said...
Enjoyed this, thanks Nathan
- March 1, 2009 at 9:33 AM
One of the best examples of this is the movie High Fidelity. John Cusack's character is completely deplorable, self-loathing, aloof and border-line insane...yet you want him to get the girl. How does THAT guy end up getting the girl?! Genius...and a side of John Cusack.
- June 17, 2009 at 3:19 PM
- Charmaine Clancy said...
I'm finding 'Game of Thrones' great for sympathetic villains. I'll decide one character is so low I just want them to die, and then they'll show their fear, weakness or love and I'm all confused again!
- June 28, 2012 at 5:36 AM


text:
I am new to BT linux, I have been running it as my only OS for several weeks. I am very happy with it for my work, but not sure to use all the time. my current install is on a OCZ vertex III 60 gb SSD. my laptop is a centrino duo 1.3 ghz with 8 gb of ram and intel video. I have done much reading in the forum and have resolved 100's of issues. however my original install was alongside Win7 on a OCZ agitily II 60 gb SSD and I need to restore the win7 boot and delete that install of BT. after the BT install to this drive I was no longer able to access win7. I no longer want to use Win7 but I do want to have the option. so any help will be greatly appreciated.
also I do not wish to run BT linux for common use and want another similar but safer linux version to run in dual boot. so far Linux Mint looks good. and claims to have good security and pre installed features, plugins and apps. any suggestions? Advice?
other minor problem: Video resolution does not restore on reboot. starts at 800X600 on laptop screen and the HDMI external. my preferred settings are 1024X768 on laptop, and 1200X1080 on external. but changes evertime.
Thanks in advance Logan

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Rocky mountain spotted fever, lesions on arm
Rocky mountain spotted fever, lesions on arm
This is the appearance of the rash of Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever on the hands and forearms. The rash starts on the hands and feet and later spreads to the trunk. It is caused by a bacteria transmitted to humans by a tick bite. (Image courtesy of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.)
A.D.A.M. content is best viewed in IE9 or above, Fire Fox and chrome browser.


text:
Package Front
Package Rear
Show MoreLess
Now Viewing:
You Pay: $13.95
The Pearstone VBBC-306 is a 6' Premium BNC to BNC video cable designed for use with video and audio devices.
Pure OFC (oxygen-free copper) 18AWG wiring - with two layers of insulation - is used for the core of this cable. Encasing the OFC wiring is a rugged SuperFlex PVC outer jacket that is both durable and flexible. The corrosion-resistant connectors feature a positive-grip strain-relief shell, 24k split-pin contacts, and 24k gold-plated terminations.
This Pearstone cable ensures a clean and superior video signal, ideal for both composite and component video applications.
|Cable Type
|Copper Insulated BNC
|Connector 1
|BNC Male
|Connector 2
|BNC Male
|Packaging Info
|Package Weight
|0.6 lb
|Box Dimensions (LxWxH)
|9.921 x 7.638 x 1.732"


text:
Where I work is looking to do some penetration testing. It is a relatively small company and this is the first time it has done any such test.
I was hoping that the community could give some advice on the do's, do not's and the bare in minds we should know when picking a person or company to test our servers.
I will also be researching the web but I know there are a lot of smart people on these forums, so any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Many ThanksEAguy
If your company is looking for someone to do penetration testing, your best bet is to get someone with CEH (Certified Ethical Hacker) qualifications as that person has received training in hacking techniques, that person has been vetted (to unknown extent) by the EC Council) and a CEH has been tested for knowledge including (most importantly) that he/she needs to be protected with an ironclad which allows your system to be attacked/penetrated. Failure of any of these points will mean that you are putting your company's IT resources (not to mention it's reputation) at risk.
As a CEH, I must say that I was rather shocked that the hacker tools (like BackTrack - that link should scare you!) are widely available and continually upgraded. Therefore, it is incumbent upon you to get references from your CEH and then talk to the CEH's prior clients.
Do NOT merely get someone's kid to attack your system as the damage caused could be irreparable. Do it professionally ... and expect to pay for it. Just remember, you get what you pay for so give yourself credit for (1) knowing the value of a pen test and (2) asking for advice.
Thanks, that sounds like great advice
Hello Eaguy ,
If your company is looking for a Penetration Testing then look for a person who is having a certification of LPT(Licensed Penetration Tester) . This guys can help you to find maximum bugs from your system.
As others suggested, it would be best to hire a prefessional for this. However, if you want to do it on your own, I'd suggest you give Nessus a shot. There is a free version available which is sufficient to get a basic idea of your (web) security.
Thanks everyone, great feedback.


text:
Classes and Education
GYN Oncology Clinic
This weekly clinic is staffed by physicians who are Board Certified in Gynecological Oncology. The clinic's purpose is to make specialized gynecologic oncology services available to Sutter patients who have a confirmed diagnosis of, or symptoms indicative of female genital cancer. The clinic is held every Monday, 8:30 a.m.-4 p.m. and Tuesday, 1-4 p.m. at the Sutter Cancer Center, Sacramento.
Where & When
|To be Announced
|Sutter Cancer Center, Sacramento, Sutter Medical Center�s facilitators and medical doctors
2800 L Street - Room TBD
Sacramento, CA 95816
|View MapOpens in new window
Class Registration
For more information or to schedule an appointment, please call (888) 300-0330.
Invite a Friend
Feel free to invite others. Send them an e-mail invitation to this event.Send an Invite Opens in new window


text:
IJssel River
river of
Netherlands, an important distributary of the Rhine River. It leaves the Lower Rhine (Neder Rijn) just southeast of Arnhem and flows northeastward for 70 miles (113 km) to enter the IJsselmeer (a lake formed from the old Zuiderzee) between the Northeast (Noordoost) and East Flevoland polders. The river is navigable and slow-moving and deposits much silt. Zutphen, Deventer, and Zwolle are important municipalities along its course.


text:
Seiko Online Shopping at Best Discount and Price - Yebhi.com
Seiko Watch India Private Limited was set up in 2007 with the intention of addressing the discerning needs of the Indian consumer. The company has bought in India Seiko's best and latest watches in conjunction with their world-wide launch. Seiko's technological development is focused on the creation of 'emotional technologies.' The brand believes that a good watch lives in harmony and interacts with the wearer. The brand has a global 'no compromise' distribution strategy which states that Seiko watches will only be available at those outlets that offer the highest quality of service to the consumer. Thus, Seiko watches are available on India's largest  online shopping portal, Yebhi.com. The website offers the largest collection of lifestyle accessories in India so  buy Seiko watches online in India on Yebhi.
we found- 948 product


text:
Hair - dry
Dry hair is hair that does not have enough moisture and oil to maintain its normal sheen and texture.
Call your health care provider if:
Your doctor will perform a physical examination and may ask the following questions:
Diagnostic tests that may be performed include:
Habif TM. Hair diseases. In: Habif TP, ed. Clinical Dermatology. 5th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Mosby Elsevier; 2009:chap 24.


text:
New Member Introductions
New members check-in, introduce yourselves, and post a picture of your BMW here!
|Thread Tools
|Search this Thread
|Display Modes
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Pennsville NJ
Posts: 2
My Ride: BMW 323i
First BMW. Wow, Have I Been Missing Out All These Years!
Greetings! After my Focus ZTS was totaled I decided to pay cash for an old car rather than get another car loan. My local mechanic had a 323i for sale, so I thought, "Hey, if I'm buying a 'beater,' what not own a bimmer beater?" I'd never even sat inside one before. One test drive is all it took. The difference was immediate, the superiority to my other rides obvious!
You can imagine my frustration then, when I'd owned it for only 1.5 hours, only to experience that it would not go into reverse. I had to call for a tow and was not happy. My research revealed this was a notorious bimmer issue. GRRR! Before I even took it in to the shop (my mechanic said the part was on order), my rear window regulator broke. AAGH!!! I began to wonder about the "reliable" dimmer.
My mechanic was good for it though, replaced the solenoid and fixed the window. HOWEVER, he said to me that he just learned while seeking an opinion from Benchmark about which solenoid to replace, that my 323i also has a 'reverse drum' which "could be" broken. He has offered to buy the car back or split the cost of a new transmission IF it turns out to be broken. Well, while researching this reverse issue, I thought for sure I read that depending on the bimmer, it will have EITHER a solenoid-based trans OR a reverse drum, the solenoid being a relatively inexpensive fix, the drum an expensive one. SO I'M CONFUSED and WONDERING WHAT I SHOULD DO. Is my mechanic lying? He knows I'm ignorant about cars. Does a 323i have either one or the other system or is it possible to have BOTH? He "fixed" the solenoid and my reverse works right now, but even before the "fix" the reverse would work sometimes but not always.
APART FROM THIS bummer about my bimmer, I love the feel of it and think that if it works out, my next car will be a bimmer, though a newer one.
David, the confused, new-to-bimmer, guy
|Ads by Google
Guests, get your FREE E46Fanatics.com membership to remove this ad.
|Thread Tools
|Search this Thread
|Display Modes
Linear Mode


text:
The San Fernando Valley's oldest known family-owned restaurant, whose roots hark back to the Great Depression, will soon call it quits.
Sierra's Mexican Restaurant of Canoga Park, beloved by generations of Valley dealmakers, aerospace workers and families, announced its last combination platter will be dished out New Year's Eve.
The owner of the Canoga Park landmark said he will also close a sister Mission Burrito restaurant next door. Both were sold to make way for unspecified development.
"The restaurant is a dinosaur," said Reagan Jaramillo, grandson of founder Ed Sierra, inside Sierra's tropical dining room unchanged since his father opened it 43 years ago at Canoga Avenue and Vanowen Street. "The value of the property outweighed (its) value.
"I'm very sad. Sad for my employees, averaging 15 years, and for three generations of customers."
The closure of Sierra's, which began in San Fernando and ended 80 years later in Canoga Park, marks the end of a Valley institution, customers say.
Before it burned to the ground a few years ago, appetites swirled around the San Fernando Sierra's famous for its humongous platters at affordable prices.
If there was a deal to be made in the Northeast Valley, it was done over strong margaritas at Sierra's.
Its sprawling dining room in Canoga Park, which grew out of a former Old Vic's Restaurant acquired in 1969, drew thousands of workers from nearby Rocketdyne, Litton and local businesses.
Outside work, customers drove miles for its Sunday brunch buffet, still priced at $11. Or its Taco Wednesdays, for $1 apiece. Or its potent Tijuana iced tea.
Moreover, they came for Sierra's deep vinyl booths, dark wooden grottoes and jungle of plastic and painted vines and ferns.
Mention its demise, and be prepared for a gnashing of teeth. Some equate it with Tommy's or Pink's, among other low-brow L.A. foodie icons.
"I'm sad," said Traci Blumenthal, 49, of Calabasas, over a taco plate. She'd been eating at Sierra's since she was 12, and now brings her own kids. "It can never be replaced."
"Sierra's is the No. 1 restaurant in Canoga Park," said Marian Wojdak, who for a quarter century has kept the books at Canoga Auto Body up the street, which maintains a small museum for the West Valley community. "Ask anyone where they're going to lunch, it's Sierra's.
"How can they take a landmark away? It's horrible ... I'm telling you, when you say Mexican, you say Sierra's. It's a historic landmark, another one going down the tubes for the sake of the almighty dollar."
Actually, when you say Sierra's, you could have been saying Spanish cuisine, instead. Had it stuck to its original menu, you would be saying tapas instead of enchiladas.
It started with Edward G. Sierra, an immigrant from Spain, who founded Ed Sierra's Spanish Cafe in 1932.
He had worked on Mulholland's California Aqueduct. He'd helped restore the chapel at San Fernando Mission. He'd even run the 23-room Hotel Alta during the 1918-19 Spanish Flu epidemic, treating sick guests with his remedy of tea, honey, rum and garlic.
He ran a Sierra's Poolroom in San Fernando until the lifting of Prohibition - when he converted his home into a restaurant liquor store.
His cafe was later moved to 500 San Fernando Mission Road. In 1965, he sold it to his son-in-law, Gil Jaramillo. Sierra died in 1991.
It was Jaramillo who, after founding (and later selling) Mission Brand Tortillas, switched to Mexican fare and changed the name to Sierra's.
And it was the elder Jaramillo who expanded the growing cafe to Canoga Park in 1969. A plasterer for local movie studios, he soon recruited his studio friends to redecorate the new Sierra's like a hacienda from Old Mexico - right down to the fake iron bolts anchoring interior wooden beams, and the lush painted foliage.
Quality and affordable was the motto: Jaramillo wanted customers to come back two or three times a week, his son said.
Demand was so great, the elder Jaramillo expanded it three times, to 9,000 square feet. In 1973, he and his wife, Fay turned the nearby Gus's Chicken Shack into adjacent Mission Burrito.
At its peak, Sierra's offered disco nights. Its nightly waiting list for the 300-seat dining room was 2 1/2 hours, Reagan Jaramillo said.
It's now 15 minutes, at most.
"We've been here for a long time," Jaramillo, 58, a lanky man with long gray hair and a dangling Fu Manchu moustache, strolling between a warren of empty booths. "My family has employed 100 people for 40 to 50 years."
Sierra's had hoped for a 100th anniversary, according to its website. But with the inexorable march of development out of Woodland Hills' Warner Center, Jaramillo said it was time to roll the last taquito.
The Village at Westfield Topanga mall plans a $500 million mixed-use development at Topanga Canyon Boulevard and Owensmouth Avenue, with a Costco, 100 shops and restaurants.
To the north across Victory Boulevard, the 47-year-old Rocketdyne plant may soon be converted to high-rises. United Technologies Corp., which is selling the rocket-engine maker that propelled America to the moon, will retain the Rocketdyne property.
Last summer, it announced plans to fill nearly the entire block across from Sierra's with a 16-story hotel, rows of 12-story homes and offices, plus scores of stores and restaurants.
Catty-corner to the low- slung Sierra's is a 300-unit, four-story luxury apartment complex now under construction. It's scheduled to open next year.
Last month, the Los Angeles Planning Commission signed off on new development guidelines for Warner Center that provide a blueprint for growth through 2035. The Warner Center Specific Plan includes the area roughly bounded by Vanowen Street, the Ventura (101) Freeway, De Soto Avenue and Topanga Canyon Boulevard.
"In other words," Jaramillo said, "there's going to be a Disneyland-(like) park. When you get off the bus, you're going to see a new city, with parks, lakes and recreation.
"The city outgrew us. There's no way we can compete with city plans. I don't want to be the one holding up progress."
Jaramillo declined to say how much his Jaramillo Enterprises Inc. sold the 100,000 square-foot property for. He also said a confidentiality agreement stipulates he cannot name the new owner.
While the Mission Burrito in Canoga Park will close, he said, the Mission Burrito in West Hills will remain open. There may be plans for a Mission Burrito franchise - or even another Sierra's restaurant someday, he said.
"Everybody is kind of depressed," said Shelly Avalos, Sierra's manager, who will keep her job working at the last Mission Burrito. "I'm depressed, for them."
Other longtime employees said they were given only a few weeks notice. "They didn't say thanks," said Raul Gonzales, a waiter in a tuxedo shirt who began busing tables at age 16 in 1980. "They just gave us a reference card. I am sad."
One Valencia man who first discovered Sierra's in San Fernando two decades ago said he will miss its unique atmosphere. The food was great, the decor unique. He said it made you feel at home.
Kevin Baxter will miss the Sierra's nachos, but will especially miss its signature Tijuana iced tea - like its Long Island cousin, but with tequila.
"Nobody makes it like they do," said Baxter, 53. "It's just sad to see it close."


text: The ink wasn't dry on Andrew Puzder's withdrawal as secretary of labor nominee, but union leaders were celebrating. AFSCME President Lee Saunders said Puzder had "nothing but contempt for everything the Labor Department stands for." AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said "the power of collective action" had taken Puzder down. Thomas Perez, the former secretary of labor now running to lead the Democratic National Committee, hopped on a conference call with reporters to celebrate.


text:
© 2012 American City Business Journals. All rights resereved. Use of this Site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement (updated 3/14/12) and Privacy Policy (updated 3/14/12).
The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of American City Business Journals.
Forums: Admins | Moderators
Lacrosse news straight to your inbox.
Tuesday August 6th, 2013 1:14am
Box Score
Moon Township, Pa. – The Robert Morris University men's lacrosse team outscored Wagner 13-2 in the second half in claiming a 22-6 victory over the Seahawks in each team's Northeast Conference (NEC) opener Saturday afternoon at a sunny Joe Walton Stadium.
The victory gave RMU its ninth consecutive win in conference games, extending its own NEC record.
The Colonials set season highs in goals, assists (15), ground balls (44) and caused turnovers (18) on the afternoon. RMU's 18 caused turnovers were one off the school record and the most by the Colonials in their past 39 overall games. The 18 CT, which is a program record in a conference game, helped Robert Morris post double digit caused turnovers for the sixth time in nine games this season.
Junior defenseman Sean Meagher (Chesterfield, Mo. / St. Louis University) led the charge in forcing opposition turnovers for the Colonials as he tied a single-game school record by notching five caused turnovers on the afternoon. He becomes the fourth Colonial ever to achieve that feat, joining both his teammate Ben Lewis (Cazenovia, N.Y. / Cazenovia Central) and his assistant coach Jordon Sealock. Meagher moved into second in single-season caused turnovers at RMU (22) with his performance Saturday.
Redshirt senior attackman Dave Morton (Orangeville, Ontario / Hill School) posted a game-high six points on the strength of four goals and two assists. It marked Morton's 21st multi-point game, his 16th multi-goal effort and his 10th career hat trick. Morton now has posted multiple points in seven of the team's past eight games and reached the six-point mark in a game for the fourth time in his career.
True freshman attackman Luke Laszkiewicz (Oshawa, Ontario / Westminster Prep) had another strong day as he netted a hat trick and added an assist to post his third straight multi-point game. Laszkiewicz had his second hat trick of the season and has now had at least three points in four outings in 2013.
Redshirt senior attackman Mike Keegan (Commack, N.Y. / Commack) had the best offensive day of his career as he tallied a career-high four points on the strength of his first-ever hat trick and an assist.
Redshirt junior midfielder Taylor Graves (Carlsbad, Calif. / Carlsbad) had a career-best four points as he contributed two goals and two assists against Wagner. Graves notched his fourth multi-goal game of the season, the seventh of his career and his 12th career multi-point effort.
Sophomore Jacob Ruest (Cornwall, Ontario / The Hill Academy) was the fourth and final Colonial to hit the four-point mark on the day as he scored once and added three helpers. Ruest set career highs in both assists and points in tallying his third multi-point game of the season.
Senior Jake Hayes (Calgary, Alberta / Central Memorial) continued his notable offensive streaks by posting a pair of goals and an assist to extend his career long point streak to 24 games. He moved his goal streak and multi-point streak to 16 games each. In doing so, Hayes becomes just the second Colonial ever to score in 16 straight games. With Saturday's effort, he claimed his 29th multi-point game and his 24th multi-goal outing.
After more than seven minutes of scoreless lacrosse to open the game, RMU scored three times in under three minutes to claim an early edge. Wagner would score three of the game's next five goals to cut its deficit to two scores, but that's as close as the Seahawks would get the rest of the way.
Holding a 7-4 lead in the final 90 seconds of the first half, Robert Morris scored twice before the break to take a five-goal cushion into intermission.
As it turned out, those two goals were the beginning part of a stretch in which RMU scored an amazing 13 consecutive goals in under 19 minutes. Each team scored twice within the final 12:30 of the game to set the final margin.
Senior Tyler Digby (Westminster, British Columbia / New Westminster) joined Hayes in scoring twice and adding an assist. Digby now has 15 points in his last four games. He tallied his 16th career multi-point game and his seventh multi-goal game with his effort.
True freshman midfielder Eric Rankel (Philadelphia, Pa. / Downingtown West) had a goal and an assist to tally his seventh multi-point game of the season.
True freshman James Rahe (Aldergrove, British Columbia / W.J. Mouat) scored his first-career goal Saturday against Wagner. Junior Ryan Higgins (Downingtown, Pa. / Downingtown West) posted his first goal of the season in the victory while senior Jason Hodgson (Beaverton, Ore. / Southridge) assisted on a goal to post his first point of 2013.
Redshirt senior Charles Ruppert (Long Island, N.Y. / Massapequa) started in between the pipes for RMU and picked up the victory by stopping five of the nine shots on goal that he faced on the day.
RMU had advantages in most statistical categories, including shots, shots on goal, ground balls, clearing percentage and extra-man opportunity percentage while also committing fewer turnovers.
Robert Morris has now knocked off Wagner in each of the past seven years.
RMU will continue with NEC play next weekend by facing the defending league tournament champions. The Colonials will travel to Bryant Saturday, April 6, for a 1:00 p.m. faceoff.


text:
Alice Cooper comes up with ideal supergroup
Listen to Alice Cooper on iHeartRadio
Alice Cooper says his annual New Year's Eve charity concert was his best one yet. And he's thinking about taking it on the road.
The rocker says in his "Nights with Alice Cooper" blog that his latest lineup was simply incredible. The show featured Cooper and his band along with Aerosmith's Steven Tyler, Sammy Hagar, Bon Jovi's Richie Sambora, Weird Al Yankovich, and others.
Alice says he and Tyler talked afterward about how they "should take that on the road, that bunch of guys."
The concert took place at the Wailea Marriott Hotel in Maui. Money raised went to the Maui Food Bank.
Photo Credit Getty Images


description: December 24, 2013—A circus troupe of well-trained cats is touring the United States—proof that the famously stubborn domestic house cat can indeed learn new tricks.

is_us_only: false

title: Can You Really Train Your Cat?

allowUserEmbed: True

credit: 2013 National Geographic

transcript:
I'm Samantha Martin. I'm the chief human and trainer for the Amazing Acro-Cats, a group of former orphan, rescue and strays that now perform in a cat circus of sorts.  We travel the country and show people that cats can indeed be trained.
Cats have a different level of motivation.  Dogs will work for love and a tennis ball.  They just want to please you.  Cats definitely want to know that there is something in it for them.
Cats are very comfortable up here.  They are very used to it.  It's a very spontaneous show.  There's a lot of ad-lib because I kind of have to follow along with what the cats decide to do.  So, they're definitely still are independent.  They'll do the trick.  They know the trick.  But they'll do it after they stretch, after they groom.
[Inside Tour Bus]
It's usually three humans and then the thirteen cats.  Cats actually have the best accommodations.  They have the back third of the bus. And it is decked out with perches and cat trees and beds and toys and everything a cat could want.
I'm definitely a cat person.  I've worked with all kinds of animals but over the years I definitely started to relate more and more to cats.  I think they are graceful, intelligent, they definitely have attitudes.
A huge part of training is basically observation.  Is it a cats that likes to hang out low and swat at things?  Do they like to jump up high?  Are they active?  Do they roll around on their backs a lot?  Do they bat things with their paws?  Anything that the cat does, you can turn into a potential trick?
It is possible to train cats.  We do somewhat capture the behaviors that cats already do, say pawing at a mouse.  And instead, we'll apply that to pawing at a piano and basically training them to play the piano because we are taking them, their natural behaviors that they would always do, and just doing it on command and doing it with the utility that we want them to use.
They're more feral.  They are less domesticated than some of our other companion animals.  Hence, that's what makes them a little bit trickier to train because we haven't asked them for thousands of years to actually change their behavior that is more conducive to our lifestyle. But if any animal can be domesticated, we can modify it to pretty much anything we want, being that the genetics are already there in the wild population.
So from the wolves, dogs can be sight hounds or they can be smell hounds.  Where if we wanted to do that with cats, we can probably get around to it as well but it would take hundreds of years to get that accomplished.
I'm not surprised by a cat circus. I'm more surprised by the patience of the person that is actually training the cat because I think the cat can actually outlast the trainer in many instances.
Yeah, they do have a bad rap.  They definitely have attitude-"cattitude" -so you can't really rely on them quite so much.  I don't think you really see as much service cats out there.  But, yeah, they're just a different kind of animal.  But they can definitely be trained and they definitely should be given the opportunity to show how intelligent they are.


text:
No. 19 Falls to No. 7 and Undefeated Missouri, 3-0
Nov. 3, 2013
COLUMBIA, Mo. – The No. 19 University of Kentucky volleyball team fell to No. 7 and undefeated Missouri, 3-0 (21-25, 23-25, 22-25) in three tightly contested matches Sunday afternoon at the Hearnes Center.
The Wildcats (16-6, 8-3 Southeastern Conference) were unable to hand the Tigers (26-0, 9-0 SEC) their first loss of the season in front of a lively crowd of 3,925. UK came back to tie the second set at 23 and got within two in the third set, at 24-22, but were unable to complete the comeback.
"It was disappointing to not extend the match and give us a chance to win," UK head coach Craig Skinner said. "We are not tough enough in those situations yet. Give credit to Missouri for making plays when they needed too."
Kentucky was held to .229 hitting with 45 kills, while Missouri hit .350 with 47 kills. The Wildcats registered five blocks to the Tigers' nine, while UK notched three service aces.
Freshman Anni Thomasson led the way for UK with a match and career-high 15 kills to go along with seven digs, the second highest total for the Wildcats. Senior Alexandra Morgan posted eight kills on .316 hitting, while fellow senior Whitney Billings notched seven kills, three blocks and five digs.
Sophomore Morgan Bergren dished out 34 assists in addition to five kills, six digs and two blocks. Sophomore Shelby Workman contributed six kills, two assists and three digs and sophomore Sara Schwarzwalder led the team with four block assists. Redshirt freshman Kelsey Wolf had five digs, while junior libero Jackie Napper had eight digs, three assists and one service ace.
The Wildcats return home for a weekend series with South Carolina and LSU. The Wildcats and Gamecocks square off Nov. 8 at 7 p.m. ET, while the Tigers come to Lexington Nov. 10 at 1:00 p.m. The match with the Tigers will air live on CWKYT locally in Lexington and again on Fox Sports South later in the evening.
UK and MU began the first set with three lead changes and eight ties, but four straight Tiger points gave them an 11-8 lead, which they would never relinquish. After Mizzou extended their lead to 20-14, the Wildcats went on a 5-0 run to get within one, at 20-19. Kentucky could not get any closer, and Missouri pulled away for the 25-21 first set victory. Thomasson led UK with six kills, while Billings and Schwarzwalder each had two block assists. Billings, who had three kills, also registered UK's lone service ace in the frame. The Wildcats hit .235 in the frame with 14 kills, while the Tigers posted 17 kills with a .424 hitting clip. UK out-blocked MU, 3.0-1.0.
Two late comebacks, including one to tie the set at 23, wasn't enough in the second set, as UK fell by two, 25-23. The Wildcats got an early 3-2 lead, but the Tigers quickly responded with a 5-1 run and led, 7-4. Mizzou extended its lead to 18-10, the largest of the match, but that's when Kentucky mounted its comeback. The Blue and White scored seven of the next eight points to get within two, and after MU extended their lead to four at 21-17, the Wildcats answered right back to knot the contest at 23. Missouri scored the final two points, to earn the 25-23 victory. Kentucky registered 16 kills in the frame, with four from Morgan, and hit .163, while Mizzou hit .235 with 13 kills. UK had two blocks, while MU had six.
The Wildcats found themselves down late in the third set, but again they staged a comeback to get within three at 23-20 and 24-22. It was not enough to extend the match, as Mizzou scored the final point to win the match and keep its perfect season alive. Kentucky hit .312 in the set with 15 kills. Thomasson notched six kills to lead all players in the set, while Workman added three.
Kentucky's Memorial Coliseum will play host to the NCAA Regionals Dec. 13-14. UK is one of four sites selected for the Sweet 16 and Elite Eight matchups with one team advancing to the Final Four in Seattle, Wash., from the Lexington Region. This marks the second time in three seasons Memorial Coliseum will host this premier volleyball event.
Visit UKathletics.com for the most up-to-date information on the Kentucky volleyball team and all 22 varsity sports. For additional info on the volleyball team like Kentucky Volleyball on Facebook or follow the team on Twitter at @KentuckyVB.


text: What I wrote before: In my opinion, this book was a satisfying conclusion to the Hunger Games trilogy. Collins never shied away from presenting the horrors of war. I mourned characters but felt that this book adequately ended the trilogy. It doesn't hurt that my team one. Blog: yablogyareader Teens's blog


text:
'Quinn said multiple times that it was Drury's decision to return home and accept the Rangers' terms. "They never once countered. They did not want to give us a number and ultimately said they did not want to come back and wanted to go to New York."'
Quinn And Regier Meet The Press Monday
July 2, 2007 Submitted by
Via: WGR-AM