The other half of the sympathy equation
In my last post, I discussed why it is important for a novel’s protagonist to not only take actions within the story, but also display believable emotional reactions to the situations you put him in. When you have both, you create a sympathetic character for the reader. Those two elements—action and emotion—create a character readers will inherently want to root for.
In the comments on that post, astute reader Leah Raeder points out that there is more to it than that:
We have to feel like characters can lose something (or have already lost) in order to feel sympathy for them.
She is absolutely right. Her point goes to the question of stakes: what does your character stand to gain or lose in any given scene? Compelling stakes are so powerful in enticing readers to sympathize with a character that they can actually rescue a story in which the protagonist fails the first half of the sympathy equation.
James Bond is a perfect example, which is exactly why the high-stakes poker game scene from Casino Royale jumped to mind as an illustration for this article. James Bond utterly fails the first half of the sympathy equation.
I give him full marks for action: Bond displays decisiveness in spades, and never delays an opportunity to take action. But emotionally, he fails. He doesn’t show us believable emotional responses. His cool-as-a-cucumber demeanor even in the hottest situations, and his devil-may-care attitude towards danger are not particularly realistic.
Yes, there are people in the world like that. That’s not the point. The point is, your readers probably aren’t like that themselves. Your readers are much more likely to be normal people who, you know, feel fear and stuff. They’re going to have trouble relating to someone who doesn’t.
Yet no one can argue that the character of James Bond has enjoyed wild success. Why? Because he’s always playing for very compelling, very high stakes. More than once, the fate of Queen and Country or even the whole world has rested on the outcomes of James Bond’s death-defying heroism.
The stakes in every Bond caper are so high they outweigh the protagonist’s stunted emotional development. Or, as Donald Maass put it very well in his book Writing the Breakout Novel:
If there is one single principle that is central to making any story more powerful, it is simply this: Raise the stakes.
When something important is at risk, we naturally expect characters to take extreme measures to eliminate that risk. Ask yourself, does every scene in your novel—like every scene in Casino Royale—bear directly on that risk or its consequences? If so, and especially if you get the first half of the sympathy equation right too, you might just have another Bond on your hands.
March 22, 2010 18:12 UTC
5 Comments:
Posted by Clara on March 23, 2010 17:46 UTC
I loved the post. I would just add that people will always like a character that is heroic (like Bond). Sometimes, the hero has to do great things, and we all want to do great things. So I guess this appeal is also very big regarding characters. Thats why we call them our story´s heroes.
Posted by Camille on March 23, 2010 18:20 UTC
I think the poker scene is successful in gaining sympathy for more than action. The thing is, most of those poker sequences are set up sequences. Bond is young and brash, and he has a lot to prove. Partway through that sequence he fails, and then he is nearly killed, and he has to make a comeback from both of these, in spite of the fact that everyone around him doesn’t believe in him - he’s not “Bond. James Bond” yet. That’s not just stakes for queen and country, that’s personal.
Further when he finally proves himself to be the invulnerable winner, it’s a false success. Everything falls apart for him immediately after. So IMHO his arrogance works on two levels - first it’s unproven and therefore he is indeed vulnerable, and when he finally proves himself, it’s all undone and he’s even more vulnerable than before. (And I’m not just talking about the famous torture scene, but pretty much all the rest of the movie.)
A writing teacher of mine once told me to never let my characters cry. Give them reason to cry, and have them hold back, and the audience will cry for them. Emotionally distant characters can still evoke emotion in the audience.
Posted by Jason Black on March 23, 2010 21:56 UTC
I think the poker scene is successful in gaining sympathy for more than action.
Indeed, the modern James Bond succeeds in this far more than the classic Sean Connery / Roger Moore era Bonds did. The modern Bond shows a far wider range of not just emotions, but emotional motivations than in the past.
This, I think, is very much to the credit of the scriptwriters.
Still, when you think of a cool, emotionless action hero, James Bond is pretty high on the list so that’s why I picked him to head this article.
A writing teacher of mine once told me to never let my characters cry. Give them reason to cry, and have them hold back, and the audience will cry for them.
Interesting. I like that. I’m not sure if I quite agree with it yet, but it’s definitely an intriguing idea. I’ll have to give that some thought.
Posted by Camille on March 24, 2010 00:32 UTC
You’re definitely right that Bond (even the newest Bond) is a great example of what you were talking about. (And yes, I agree that the last two movies have that Paul Haggis touch for emotional complexity. I don’t think he is involved in the next script, so we’ll just have to see how this continues. Especially since the Bond character has now put the past to rest and is the more invulnerable Bond we all know.)
The crying rule is really a rule of thumb. Each situation will vary, but I do think there is something to the psychology where the audience will react more if the character holds back. I don’t think that they will react for a character that doesn’t seem to care. There has to be that connection that makes them believe that the character is feeling the hurt.
Posted by Theresa Milstein on March 22, 2010 21:31 UTC
James Bond is certainly a perfect analogy for raising the stakes. I’m trying to get both the sympathy and raising stakes parts right in my manuscripts.