Another useful purpose for pain to flesh out characters is
to give the character a defining event in their lives, but not
physically this time. More psychologically/emotionally this
time. For example, a serial killer on trial using an insanity
plea has a psychologist psychoanalyze him. The psychologist
present to the court an incident in the defendant�s life, where
he finds his little sister dead and sexually assaulted. From the
beginning we are presented with the idea that this man does
killing for fun, now we are presented with a picture that the
man is cannot help himself from doing these things because of
the trauma he has received. We are presented with a more solid
character, attracting both disgust and hate along with pity and
sadness.

    The problem is, it doesn't always work, largely because it's a device that's been overused -- and because it's just not right.

    *Every*one has pain. That's a reality. We can speculate on the reasons for it, debate the necessity, but at the end of the day, that is *the* reality. And we all choose how we deal with it.

    Unfortunately, some people who've been victims, choose to become victimizers.

    It's a logical progression, in a lot of ways, but it's *not* automatic. And frankly, I'm becoming a bit disturbed at the tendency -- in the real world and in fiction -- to assume that anyone who's had a difficult or dysfunctional childhood will automatically grow up to be some sort of monster. The cycle of abuse *can* be broken.

    My parents managed it.

Every good author knows that hurting a character
takes guts and courage, since we�re technically doing it to a
piece of ourselves. But, again, as any good author knows, the
story is foremost, the tale supreme above all concerns. Thus
writers follow the Machiavellian principle of the end justifying
the means. I massacre a family here. I blow up a country there.
I abuse someone over there. All for the sake of the story and
plot, to give the reader and the story the ending they deserve.

    BUT.

    The most magical moment in writing anything comes when a character stands up and says "No. I'm not going to do what you want. It doesn't suit my own ideas for what I ought to do in this situation."

    And yes, it *does* happen. I speak from experience -- the originally plotted climax to "1999: Things Man Was Meant to Know"  was a long, protacted psychic/verbal duel between Kent and the Dark Man. Didn't work out that way. Kent took what the Unicorn told him -- that he was a healer as well as a warrior -- much more seriously than I anticipated. Go fig. The son of the greatest surgeon this poor world's ever seen wanting to do first aid rather than fight? Who knew?

    The closest cinematic comparison that I can suggest is the climax of "The Truman Show", when the production staff suddenly realize that the man they've all been watching possesses greater reserves of character and strength than they've tried to engender in him -- that, as "Truman" himself states, they "never had a camera inside [his] head."

      - from an excised scene of Elsa Bibat�s fanfic �The
Women They Love: Haruka�.

    Of course you realize that the Haruka-Cult will be after you for even *thinking* about this ...

Chris Davies.
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com