We shouldn't blame LKH for our disappointment (apparently)

[ex-naomi-ja.livejournal.com]

JA Konrath's posted an interesting article on his blog about the way fans react when they feel an author isn't being true to their own characters. He doesn't mention LKH, but he does mention her sister in DarkityDarkness, Anne Rice. He says that "... the author really can't be untrue to a character they created. It's impossible. As the creator, the author can chose to do whatever they want with the character. There is no intrinsic right or wrong, true or untrue, fair or unfair."

Since this is an argument the Troos throw around a lot, I'm interested to see what people make of Konrath's point of view. Do we, as fans who've invested time, money and emotion into a series, really have no right to be disappointed in what an author does with the series? Or is there no moral high ground for us?

Comments

[moonsinger.livejournal.com]

The character exists in the writer's mind and the reader's mind, and both versions are different. So perhaps to the reader the character can be, but not to the writer.

[estllechauvelin.livejournal.com]

Theoretically it's an argument with some validity. The author is the one who created the character in the first place and who determines what the accurate interpretation is. The problem comes when the author radically changes the character in the middle of a book or series without a logical progression of development. Yes, they're the author's characters and she can do what she wants with them, but hand-waving massive personality shifts is still shoddy writing.

[jerel.livejournal.com]

IAWTC.

People change through their life experiences, so it's logical that characters will change as they experience things. As a reader, what I object to is someone I don't recognize from one book to the next. I mean, if you want to write a different character, just write one.

[bryant]

Yeah; there's no morality issue here. You can't be unfair or untrue to a character. IMHO, fans bitching about how someone's being unfair to a character are verging on the sort of identification that we mock LKH for.

You can write poorly, however.

[nightangel486.livejournal.com]

Agreed. A writer can do whatever they want with their characters, but that doesn't mean I can't criticize what they do or call them out on what I feel is just poor writing.

[straussmonster.livejournal.com]

I think you can be unfair to a character in the sense that you can take a character who was previously treated with nuance and turn them into a punching bag, loading them up with every idea which you obviously want to discredit/denigrate. It's been a long time since I even cracked one of the later AB books, but that's very much the reaction I got to how she treated Richard. He went from being a character who she allowed to score points in arguments to being always, always wrong.

[bleedtoblue.livejournal.com]

I have issues with writers who abruptly change characterizations. Certainly their characters are theirs to do with as they wish, but by the same token I, as reader, don't have to like it or continue buying and reading their books. As has happened with LKH and others. It's not so much that her characters have changed as that her writing continues to deteriorate.

[gehayi.livejournal.com]

I agree. The author has control of what a character does, yes. But that doesn't mean that an author--even a professional author--can't write his or her character in a way that doesn't fit the character's prior personality or behavior, or that's downright antithetical to both.

[kynekh-amagire.livejournal.com]

Well. We have the right to be disappointed, even if our disappointment doesn't, in any practical sense, matter.

Or, to put it another way:

Judith: Here, I've got an idea: suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb -- which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans' -- but that he can have the right to have babies.
Francis: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother! Sister, sorry.
Reg: What's the point?
Francis: What?
Reg: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?
Francis: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
Reg: It's symbolic of his struggle against reality.

- Monty Python's Life of Brian

[morriganscrow.livejournal.com]

Monty Python has the answer to everything!

[christraven.livejournal.com]

Python for the Win!

[evareia.livejournal.com]

I think Konrath is generally right, but there's a difference between being untrue to the character in the writer's head and being untrue to the character the readers meet in the book. I think the latter is definitely possible - it really depends on the writer's communication skills. Good writers can guide you along a character's progression and even if you don't like where they land up, you at least understand how they got there. A less-than-good writer makes you jump from point to point on your own with no guideline, and leaves you confused at the end.

[lovefromgirl.livejournal.com]

Concisely and skillfully put. :-)

[joereaves.livejournal.com]

Well, in part it's true. I mean, for example, the shippers who threw a fit about Harry ending up with Ginny and not Hermione were idiots. Even apart from the copious amounts of foreshadowing, it was in character, it just wasn't something they liked. But if JKR had suddenly decided that with no explanation and no character development leading to it Harry would decide that 'hey I know you killed my parents and all and my best friend is muggleborn but actually I'd like to join you Voldemort, subjugate the wizarding world and kill all the non pure bloods' that would obviously not be true to the character and I don't care how much the author wanted it it would be bad writing, it would be OOC even if he is her character, and it would be completely implausible.

So no, the author doesn't have to be true to anyone's vision of the character but their own, but unless they want their books to be unbelievable and badly written they do have to be true to the character and not suddenly chane their personality with no explanation at all.

[manekikoneko.livejournal.com]

Here here. Or hear hear, or however that goes.

It's not about "true" or untrue, it's about writing well. If you write it well, you can make a character do whatever the fuck YOU want (even if it involves *gasp* violence).

[shadwing.livejournal.com]

I had a (former)pal like this...she had a vision on what she wanted chars to do, and to make it even worse...she was a GM in a game I was a part of.

So she would make these posts and then get all pissy when the chars wouldn't do/react/say what she envisioned they would do. She ranted at how all she got were 'dumb' players who had 'reading comprehensions of 3 year olds' since they couldn't tell EXACLY what was going on.

One of the reasons for the break up between us was when I told her that hald the time *I* didn't know what she was talking about and I was reading 3-4 grades ahead of my classmates in JH. They were on Huck Finn when I was tackling Lord of the Rings and Narnia my Reading Comp was very good, so I knew it wasn't me not understanding, it was her not communicating well enough, not making things clear enough.

Even with the most gentle and construstive crit...she didn't take it well.

Reminds me of Rice, LKH, and even CP of Eragon fame...they have (mostly) decent ideas...but they just get lost under the purple prose and dreck.

[tenaya-owlcat.livejournal.com]

I think that an author can botch the writing of a character so badly that it becomes untrue to the character. I think Anita and the ardeur is a prime example of that. There may be very logical reasons for her to have gained this power (not likely, but you never know...), but they were handled so badly that it looks like Anita went from prude to slut in 2.8 seconds. O.o Since we as readers didn't see the character progression, I think we're perfectly validated in saying that we think LKH is being untrue to the character of Anita.

And I also am reminded of a quote from Jane Yolen--which I can't remember accurately at this time--that generally states that the written story is a collaberative venture between writer and reader. I tend to agree with that. *nods firmly*

[drygo.livejournal.com]

I agree that it's an author's right to do whatever he/she wants with a character, and I agree with his justification.

However, it is also the right of the fan to be disappointed with the product. It is also the right of the fan to express disappointment with the product.

It is a failing, in my opinion, of an author who does not realize that the fan is his/her bread and butter. I don't believe in foregoing someone's artistic integrity because of complainers. But, I do believe that a good author who respects and appreciates his/her fans will actually take their thoughts and views into consideration. I also think it's short sighted for an author not to consider their fans as valid feedback for the improvement of one's writing. It's egocentric and delusional of an author to act the way LKH does.

[dameruth.livejournal.com]

Word. Exactly what I would have said, but much more gracefully put. ;)

[pith]

Strictly speaking, yes, it's the author's right to write whatever he/she wants.

However, that does not diminish the reader's right to think whatever he/she wants about what the author has written.

(Also, Mr. Konrath? The author "can CHOOSE". Seriously, people, if you want to make a living by words, use words properly!)

But no, I don't fully agree with that. If you set up a world in a certain way, and say that X, Y, and Z matter to the character, that those are the tenets she lives her life by, and then you renege on that without clear, logic reasoning (i.e., something better than the ardeur), then you've violated your own continuity. You're changing the rules mid-game, like a mystery author who has the killer be someone who's had maybe one line, and had absolutely NO hints that he/she is the one. You can't pander to your audience, but you have to play fair.

The problem, of course, is that everyone defines "fair" differently. Some authors really value their readers. Others have lost sight of the fact that it's ultimately the readership that pays their paycheques.

[gothgoddessrhia.livejournal.com]

My two cents here...

A character who starts out the book with certain personality triats and belief systems should evolve naturally over the course of the book (series). It shouldn't be a radical alteration just to spur on the story's plot (or lack thereof).

In my own books, the fans absolutely adored one particular character. Her fans were actually quite a rabid group. But from the moment I started writing her, I knew she would die to fulfill her story arc. Also, it was a natural choice for her to give her life for others. Her death was a resolution to her internal conflict and guilt over not saving the lives of her own children and her personality clearly showed her to be a person of quick, decisive choices.

One reader wrote to me that she was very upset by this character's death, but she had always known in her heart it would happen because there was just no other way. The slew of emails I received from the fans pretty much held this up, even when they were pissed at me.

Now, if I had gone against her character and story arc just for a happy ending, it would have sold the character short and not fulfilled the foundation her sacrifice was built on.

Yes, writers can do whatever they want with their characters, but it shouldn't be so out of sync with the story and the established personality of the character that it jars the reader into a WTF moment.

I'm thinking of conservative, religious Anita going Whore of Babylon here...

[kethlenda.livejournal.com]

Eh, yeah, the authors have the right to write whatever they want, and the fans have the right to decide it's dreck. ;)

[christraven.livejournal.com]

Taken at face value, yes, Konrath is correct: an author's creation is their property first and foremost, and any author who alters their characters based on what fans say is doing everyone a disservice, in effect short-changing everyone.

Of course, this whole argument is null and void for as obvious a self-insert as Anita Blake. In this particular instance, the "character" is nothing more than the author's foibles, fears, and desires given form inside the book, and is so one-dimensional that the appellation 'character' is hardly appropriate.

[vlredreign.livejournal.com]

I think that he's right.

I also think he's full of shit.

They are her characters, and she can do whatever she pleases, but until her sales drop to zilch, it won't make much of a difference one way or the other.

You know, I just thought of something, though...actually, an author CAN be untrue to a character they created. Case in point:

Jean Claude and Asher. Both are bi-sexual, with Asher leaning more towards men than women. However, if you as the author find it upchuckingly upsetting to write gay sex, then why bring it up? I still remember the scene in Cerulean Sins where all three are in the bed, and she barely has JC and Asher touch each other. Seems to me that a threesome such as the one we are to believe JC and Asher had with Julianna was mutually beneficial to all. Why did LKH deny them that? Oh, she mentions it from time to time, but if she were as forward thinking as she thinks she is, she'd at least have her gay/bi characters indulge as well. I'm not saying she has to write full on mansex, actually I'd prefer she didn't, since her sex reads like a manual for auto repair, but at least giving them equal time, you know?

K, SUN

[nebbity.livejournal.com]

I agree. To a point. And I think that LKH has crossed that point, or fallen off of it, or gotten impaled by it. Characters are the author's property, and what the author says goes. This, I think, is the root of most (good) fanfiction; the readers trying to figure out what the hell the character was thinking when they did that.

Maybe this is more a question of canon than character, but IMO, as soon as the author starts randomly changing character's hair or eye colour without explanation, or suddenly changing a character's entire established sexual identity for the sake of a scene, then the author is being untrue to them. That isn't a matter of character development or she would never do that, but the concrete facts of the author's own universe.

I think that in this case, the gross break of canon is an indication that the author has become estranged from her characters, and all the rules have gone out the window.

[lucky-ninja.livejournal.com]

I guess that's true, to a certain extent. Characters change in the course of the unfolding story. But I don't think that applies to AB:VB.

An example - one we've all chewed over ad nauseam - is how Richard turned into a dick in the middle of the series and how we've been treated to all the dick-bitch wangsting ever since. Going back to Konrath's blog, Richard's subsequent "character development" is untrue to the persona LKH created because the change wasn't due to Laurita's plan for the series. It was because of Laurell's and Gary's divorce.

If a character changes due to the author's master plan for the series, fine. But if the only reason why a character changes is because an author's work has become carbon paper for his/her personal life then the change is untrue to the character.

[ninjacooter.livejournal.com]

When one chooses to take a wonderful character/world/idea and turn the entire thing into a fistfuck-fest simply in order to take a self-masturbatory journey within their own rather limited sexual psyche - poorly veiling this within the context of a story that's rapidly degraded into low-level pools of questionable goo - and then uses the old saw, "Well, clearly you're just AFRAID of SEX. Stop hating on teh sechs!" as an excuse to defend such behavior...then I'd say maybe the readers that are bitching might have a right to be angry that you goatfucked something that was really special and shiny to them.

It's like sodomizing Old Yeller with a television instead of shooting him at the end.

[longtail.livejournal.com]

I agree with him. I think he's absolutely right. You can do anything you want to your characters, and yeah, you can't really be "untrue" to a character YOU created. They don't exist anyway (cough), so who cares what they do?

In the terms of LKH for example, I don't see Anita's change from uptight "no sex till marriage" and "I don't date vampires, I kill them" to "Let's fuck any long haired non-human male that moves" as being out of character or "untrue" to Anita.

I see it as shitty writing. If LKH wanted Anita to come to terms with her sexuality, her relationships with non-humans, and explore and grow in things that are "out of her boundries" as she intended, she just plain, flat-out, royally fucked it up. It sucks. We readers are confused because we've been given stupid plot reasons. We're not in the writer's head (thank god), we can't see the same reasoning behind this character's shift as the author does unless we're told...and the only reason I know that LKH intended this whole arrrrdooooooor crap was for the reasons stated above was because I read it in her blog. You sure can't tell because of her writing.

In spite of her reams of annoyingly long and overly detailed dialogue bits, she still manages to convey absolutely nothing about why she wants anything to happen. To the rest of us, it just looks like Anita's become a chauvinistic superslut, and is deluding herself into thinking raping monsters is ok with the world and god.

A writer's job is to convey concepts in a sensible fashion. When they don't do this, it's not a case of being untrue to the character, it's being untrue to your readers.

[cicipsychobunny.livejournal.com]

I think he's got a point. But I think the problem with LKH isn't about "being true to her characters", it's about being true to herself. Consider how many blogs get flogged here where LKH is saying, "I promised Anita no one would ever die" or "Merry doesn't want to take gory awful revenge, she wants cuddles and light".

The conflict is between what LKH really, subconsciously wants to write and what she thinks is cool to write. Ergo, she sets up a kickass Executioner with guns and toy penguins and buckets of scorn ... but can't resist her urge to make everyone happy and cuddly and Anita the centre of the universe. She sets up Merry to be kickass and sexually liberated ... but can't get past how much Teh Ghey squicks her.

Result = readers wondering what the fuck is going on, and why the hell kickass, no-sex-before-marriage Anita has turned into the Ardeur-Wielding, Non-Crime-Solving Crotch of Doom.

[clover-elf-kin.livejournal.com]

Completely disagree. There's character development, "exceptions", and then there's just shoddy writing. I have several characters who are VERY tough to write, and therefore I get them wrong more often than I should; they take more thought/revisions to get correct than others do.

[wonderbink.livejournal.com]

Obviously, I'm in no position to say that LKH has somehow gotten Anita "wrong". Anita says and does whatever LKH puts on the page that she did.

I am, however, in a position to say that Anita has become an appallingly annoying character and that LKH's writing output has pretty much gone down the shithole to the point that if anything she wrote from here on in were submitted as a debut novel, it would be laughed right off the editor's desk.

[daphne-gateau.livejournal.com]

But hasn't this been My Character Writes the Books Month on Laurell's blog? She's just a secretary for her doe-eyed muse. So where does that put her using his logic.

Anyway, like most everyone else I agree with what the guys is saying. There is no right or wrong. Just good and crappy writing. And I reserve my right to not like shite writing and to complain when I've paid for something that used to be good and is now reformulated and sucky. Anita Blake is like the New Coke of paranormal fiction.

[beloved828.livejournal.com]

I think, like most of us here, that Konrath is both right and wrong. Since a fictional character is their author's creation, what that character does is completely up to the author. However, once an author establishes a code of behavior and beliefs for their character and then goes against that code without explaining why, they are being untrue to the person they have created. Case in point, Anita's Ardeur. LKH could have devised a way for Anita to cope with the Ardeur in a way that would allow Anita to stay within her code of behavior. She didn't, and therefore the suspension of disbelief was broken. If an author chooses to have a character go completely against their code, it must be done in a way that allows the reader to understand why. If we are to see the character as a real person, we need to have logical explanations for their changes. As Evareia said, it depends on the author's communication skills. I think that being true to one's self as an author is completely different from being true to one's readers, too. LKH wanted Anita to deal with the Ardeur in a certain way without showing her readers why she would do it. It was a selfish action and it was untrue to the character that she had previously created. We as readers don't have to be happy with the way a character changes, but we should at least be allowed to understand why they changed.