Speaking purely theoretically (as someone who hasn't actually written a complete story), I imagine that one way I might try to tackle the issue would be to try to alternate my point of view, and not get attached to ONE character as "the star." Bonus points if I can have POV characters with opposing agendas, worldviews, etc., and I try to honestly put myself in that character's position, because otherwise I might run into the danger of just having all the viewpoint characters be more-or-less the same character, except that every other chapter the character sports a different name and is in drag.
My most recent readings would be: * Assorted short stories by Philip K. Dick. Very trippy. * The "Republic Commando/Imperial Commando" series by Karen Traviss, from the Star Wars "expanded universe" novels.
With certain reservations (I think I've already touched on some of those in previous LJ posts), I think I'd rate Karen Traviss about as highly as Timothy Zahn in terms of Star Wars Expanded Universe writers. I'm not really well-read enough to have an opinion on where to rate them compared to sci-fi in general, and Star Wars is really more "sci-fantasy" or "space opera," with a hefty slice of cheese.
I really need to read some of Traviss's other books. She writes interesting characters of both genders, but I think they AGREE with each other way too much, especially over topics that should be fairly controversial in the Star Wars universe. Especially jarring is just how far off of the "status quo" these characters are in their views of how good/not-good the Jedi (of the Old Republic) are. It would've been nice to have them NOT agree with each other quite so much -- or else introduce some opposing views into our "viewpoint cycle." Only the first book bothered to include an outright villain in the chapter-by-chapter cycle of viewpoints, and he didn't stick around nearly enough to be fleshed out to the point of becoming at all interesting.
I suppose the risk is that if you spend too much time in the head of your villain, you might come to sympathize with him too much. I've read stories where it becomes evident that the author really loves his (or her) villain a lot, sometimes to the point where it feels like the villain's previous offenses are being retconned and explained away (and why exactly ARE the protagonist and antagonist enemies, anyway?). Not that I'm against stories that happen to have an "antagonist" who isn't an outright villain, or a villain who can be redeemed, or even a genuinely nasty villain who nonetheless has "reasons" for his behavior. I think that all can be fascinating as well -- but there are just times when I'm reading a story and I strongly suspect that the writer's resolve has been shaken, and he or she isn't willing to carry through and let the villain STAY a villain, not for the sake of story, but for some sort of emotional writer-creation attachment.
I have favorable memories of Prophecy in this regard, by the way. That was an excellent way to turn the villain-hero model on its head simply by having the world itself be so broken. :)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2013-10-18 01:41 am (UTC)My most recent readings would be:
* Assorted short stories by Philip K. Dick. Very trippy.
* The "Republic Commando/Imperial Commando" series by Karen Traviss, from the Star Wars "expanded universe" novels.
With certain reservations (I think I've already touched on some of those in previous LJ posts), I think I'd rate Karen Traviss about as highly as Timothy Zahn in terms of Star Wars Expanded Universe writers. I'm not really well-read enough to have an opinion on where to rate them compared to sci-fi in general, and Star Wars is really more "sci-fantasy" or "space opera," with a hefty slice of cheese.
I really need to read some of Traviss's other books. She writes interesting characters of both genders, but I think they AGREE with each other way too much, especially over topics that should be fairly controversial in the Star Wars universe. Especially jarring is just how far off of the "status quo" these characters are in their views of how good/not-good the Jedi (of the Old Republic) are. It would've been nice to have them NOT agree with each other quite so much -- or else introduce some opposing views into our "viewpoint cycle." Only the first book bothered to include an outright villain in the chapter-by-chapter cycle of viewpoints, and he didn't stick around nearly enough to be fleshed out to the point of becoming at all interesting.
I suppose the risk is that if you spend too much time in the head of your villain, you might come to sympathize with him too much. I've read stories where it becomes evident that the author really loves his (or her) villain a lot, sometimes to the point where it feels like the villain's previous offenses are being retconned and explained away (and why exactly ARE the protagonist and antagonist enemies, anyway?). Not that I'm against stories that happen to have an "antagonist" who isn't an outright villain, or a villain who can be redeemed, or even a genuinely nasty villain who nonetheless has "reasons" for his behavior. I think that all can be fascinating as well -- but there are just times when I'm reading a story and I strongly suspect that the writer's resolve has been shaken, and he or she isn't willing to carry through and let the villain STAY a villain, not for the sake of story, but for some sort of emotional writer-creation attachment.
I have favorable memories of Prophecy in this regard, by the way. That was an excellent way to turn the villain-hero model on its head simply by having the world itself be so broken. :)