Limyaael ([info]limyaael) wrote,
@ 2005-06-15 19:59:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood: cranky
Entry tags:fantasy rants: spring 2005, subgenre rants

Adult bildungsroman rant
It helps, I think, that a) I’ve been looking forward to this rant, and b) the fantasy books that I’ve enjoyed the most in the last month were both adult bildungsromans. One, Charles de Lint’s Memory and Dream, was a reread, and perhaps better than I remembered; the character’s adolescent past is entwined with recollections of her adult life, and she gets to see her mistakes in all their embarrassing detail before she gets to fix them. The second, Kim Wilkins’s The Autumn Castle, is wonderful for the consequences that linger on in the character’s life (despite what could have been typical Dead Parent Angst), for the different conception of Germanic(!) faeries, and for a portrayal of what really happens when adults act like spoiled children—or Mary Sues—in what the author aptly refers to as the “Real World.” I’ll be looking out for more of Wilkins’s books, definitely.

If you need a quick reminder of what a bildungsroman is, here’s the original rant I did on them, and here’s the definition: A novel whose principal subject is the moral, psychological, and intellectual development of a usually youthful main character.



1) The adult will have some experiences that shouldn’t simply be tossed aside. While teenage protagonists may, at the beginning of the story, be innocent, naïve, untroubled by the outside world, nonjudgmental, crammed within the own narrow spaces of their souls, or all of the above, it’s going to be harder to get away with that when your hero/ine has seen twenty-five or thirty years—or more. Even if they live in an isolated Fantasyland village, their age means they’re more likely to have seen sickness, death, gruesome accidents, famines, and other consequences of harsh life, and to have been included in discussions of them. A woman twenty-five or older in a medieval environment probably has children of her own, and knows the pain of childbirth, the worry about them, and the risk of their death before they reach adulthood. A city environment, or one where the adult protagonist is actively involved in the secret group that’s determined to save the world, will have opened more eyes. It doesn’t mean that adults have to have experienced everything your world has to offer, or that they can’t have some innocence left. But in most fantasy worlds, it would take a very special combination of circumstances—like a rich parent, a completely sheltered environment, and no catastrophes at all—to have produced an adult who’s still essentially a teenager.

So. Rather than starting out with an innocent, shattering that innocence, and building on what’s left, as is the pattern of many bildungsromans, the author needs to work with an adult who’s aware of mistakes, including ones she’s made, of danger and catastrophes and lessons about her world that someone younger would still need to learn. She may come back and face mistakes she made in the past and fled from. She may undergo a complete change and descend to unknown depths before she ascends again. She may encounter something new but not devastating. But the author, if she establishes an adult background for the character, has to remember and respect it. No tossing it out the window, as many teenage protagonists tend to have happen to them with the lessons of their childhood.

This may sound like a challenge, but I think it’s an exciting one. Anything may have happened in your adult’s life—moments of great tragedy and joy, occurrences that will make the plot easier, a set personality that will cause her to react in inconvenient ways, physical injuries that have left her in pain. That gives you a richer palette of colors to paint with than if you have a protagonist who’s spent fourteen years doing essentially the same thing.

2) There are themes of connection to play with. Other than complete loner protagonists who spend their time wandering from city to city and never make any friends because—

Actually, I can’t think of any good reason for that. A loner protagonist who depends on the kindness of others for food and shelter will have to have friendly acquaintances, if not friends. And unless he’s incapable of forming emotional bonds, then he’s likely to pick up tenderness for people who amuse him or intrigue him or enter a rivalry with him. There’s really no reason to freeze someone over, say, one occurrence in his past and use it to torture him into having no friends. To me, that’s a sign of someone with psychological problems too deep to be cured by whatever plot coupon the author has thought up to offer him. /end digression

Anyway, unless you can think of a really good reason otherwise, many adults in fantasy are going to be part of communities. If they’re settled in one place, they’ll have friends, neighbors, acquaintances, enemies—rivals, business rivals, gossips whom they don’t like—people they buy the fish and bread from, perhaps a spouse and children. Really good reasons to go back home, these can play havoc when the author wants the character to adventure, and give someone a true reason to hurry back. An adult who changes her mind about them, or discovers deeper truths about them, is fun to watch.

If the adult already wanders, then he can have people he knows in each village or city he passes through. If he’s working for a Cause, then he might meet with spies, other people working for the Cause, members of secret groups, and so on. It would make a lot of sense to stir up a plot involving an old enemy, someone he knows suddenly betraying him, and so on.

Many adolescent-centered fantasies have the theme of the protagonist breaking out of some confining stricture, standing on his own two feet, and fighting against troublesome enemies or parents for the sake of Destiny. An adult-centered fantasy can study what happens when one person, linked to others, starts changing. It can lead into spillover, ripple effects, violent reactions and counterreactions, and even rebirth, if the adult breaks free and does start living on her own. There’s nothing wrong with independence as a theme. From the perspective of a community, though, the changes that independence makes don’t flow up to the boundary of one person’s soul and stop there. They’re going to alter many more people and relationships. Studying those people and relationships will give you a reason to deepen the secondary and minor characters, and the world, as well as the protagonist.

3) There can be different levels of perception. Many “normal” bildungsromans hand out the earth-shattering life lessons as if there were an expiration date on the things. The adolescent protagonists might learn that the “evil” witches are really the persecuted peaceful ones, or that friends they assumed cared about them really didn’t, or that it’s okay to use the magic they were always told was evil. Once told, they usually convert completely to the new life-lesson—something I complained about in the previous rant—and enter a supportive group of people, like the witches or some new friends or mages like them. And though I can roll my eyes at this, sometimes it’s done right, and entertainingly. When the protagonist really hasn’t experienced much but one kind of life in one kind of place, the mildest contradiction can be earth-shattering.

With an adult, however, things can get subtler. Assuredly, he or she will already have learned some axioms of his or her culture, so the mere repetition of them won’t change anything. The author can, however, introduce:

-Variations on the life-lessons (the protagonist might suddenly realize just what “the cost of true love is sacrifice” really means).
-Subtler levels to the revelations—the witches were indeed persecuted, but not everything the protagonist previously learned about them was a lie.
-Ironic or cruel revelations. The protagonist learns something, but it alienates her from those she loves while not providing an immediate supportive community for her to enter. Given that adults often have credibly greater experience and survival skills, this wouldn’t be an automatic death sentence the way it would be for a naïve teenager.

I say go for some subtlety, for multi-layered lessons, for ethical complexity. Teenagers might believably see the world in black and white, and the author might not see any way around showing their perceptions as absolute. With an adult, however, there are fewer excuses for that kind of thing, and I for one am glad of it.

4) An adult can negotiate with new people from a closer-to-equal level. I grind my teeth when the protagonist, snatched from her village by a group of mysterious, dangerous people, just nods along with whatever these mysterious, dangerous people tell her. Most of the time, she’s not keeping silent out of fear; the narrative assures me she’s curious and hot-tempered and bold enough not to be awed into silence just because someone wears a black cloak. Besides, these people tell her they need her, and will explain everything—just not, say, the prophecy or the true extent of her secret powers, because those would be information she needs to know blows against the author’s intention to string out “tension” as long as possible dangerous.

An adult could set her feet a little more firmly, I imagine, and if she couldn’t, then the author would be gracious enough to explain to me what about her personality or circumstances prevented it. There’s not the age difference between a thirty-year-old swordsman and a twenty-five-year-old woman that there is between the swordsman and a teenage girl, so the “I am older than you, I know what’s best for you, be quiet!” card is less likely to get played. The adult is probably better able to bargain and compromise than the teenager, too, from more practice. “You say you need me. I am not moving until you tell me why.” And the adult will most often have a life of her own (see point 2); even if she has daydreamed about adventure in the past, she’s not going to throw her husband and children and glassblowing business over her shoulder just because some mysterious people tell her they need her for some equally mysterious, ill-defined purpose. The adventurers would have to present her with a damn convincing reason for that.

I’ve heard before that teenagers make better fantasy protagonists precisely because they can run away and not worry about coming back, especially if they’re orphans or their families don’t care about them. That strikes me as the easy way out. You don’t have to write a journey story, you don’t have to write about an orphan, and you don’t have to write about someone completely detached from the world. And an adult also offers the advantage of someone who can be more an equal participant in the adventure, not a plot device who’s carted from place to place, the way many Destined teenagers come off.

5) Adults often have more to lose. This is yet another reason that the teenager who can blithely toss away her whole life—because her family is dead, her daily tasks bore her, she has no driving passion, and everyone who might have been her friend is jealous of her—to embrace the insanely dangerous saving of the world strikes me as less than interesting. Fantasy quests bang the self-sacrifice drum pretty hard. If nothing else, the teenage protagonist is in danger of losing her life as the Dark Lord’s forces hunt her down. She’s also in danger of losing…

Uh.

Um.

She cares about no one behind her. They don’t care about her. The “friends” who take her away end up wanting to train her as a weapon, or they can’t help her (often for contrived reasons) in the final confrontation; she has to stand free of them. The “true love” she discovers along the way is shown, and is treated by the author, as a teenage passion, explicitly based on hormones in some cases. How do people in a fantasy world with medieval-level technology know about hormones? And the true love isn’t standing with her in the final confrontation, either. It’s just her and the Dark Lord.

What does she have that is worth losing? What does she have to fight for?

Too often, it’s an ideal, not a person. She fights not for her true love, but Love. She fights not for the people she knows, but The People, a faceless mass of individuals whom, of course, she is nobly dying for even though they hate her for her magic talent and throw rocks at her. She fights not for a god she passionately adores and believes in, but some god who “chose” her and then threw precious little help her way. And, whether it’s because of the prophecy or the teenage conviction that they’re immortal, she doesn’t really believe that she’ll fail anyone or die, considerably lessening the suspense for me. The lightness of being able to walk away from everything you’ve ever known introduces a corresponding lightness into the narrative, I think, and then when the author tries to drop the protagonist into blood-smeared danger, the tone clashes. Why should I cheer for someone who can hurl everything away at a moment's notice? Couldn't she do the same thing with the final confrontation, if she decided it no longer pleased her?

An adult? An adult often has a lot more to lose. Beloved, children, people she’s known all her life, a passion or vocation or job she’s devoted years to, a religion she’s loved all her life. See point 1, and point 2. She may be standing on her own, but that doesn’t change her past experience or her connectedness, though it may throw them into a new light. She doesn’t just fight for a newly-minted life the author handed her at the beginning of the story with a promise that it would be so much better than the old.

And I think it would be even more interesting if other people did fight with her. Why not a common trap to take down the Dark Lord or his invading soldiers, one in which the whole damn village participates? It’d complement the theme of both sacrifice—some people are probably going to die—and people as opposed to ideals—they exist in the battle, and not just inside the protagonist’s head.



Fantasy without magic is next.




(Post a new comment)

Oh well.
[info]l_clausewitz
2005-06-16 01:32 am UTC (link)
#2 and #5 are the primary reasons why I prefer adult protagonists. It's so much easier to find conflict in their family, work, and social relationships than having to draw them all out of thin air like what I would be forced to do if I used a teenage orphan who also happens to be a loner. As far as I know most people are more frightened by nagging mothers-in-law than by a brooding Dark Lord. Combine the two, and you have living hell for your character.

And lots of conflict, of course. Lots of story material. As a writer who regularly fails with writing teenage protagonists, I completely second this rant.

Duh. By the way, I'm also fond of writing fantasy in military backgrounds, and I find it so difficult to explain how a teenager could have developed great military skills without an adult's experience. Theoretical understanding of tactics and strategy is easy enough to get, but things like morale, logistics, and administration--more crucial to a good general than knowing how to fight a battle of two--are almost impossible to learn without dipping one's hand into the muck. An alternative is giving the "teenager" military experience from an early age like, say, twelve or thirteen, but that usually ends up with the "teenager" growing up faster and already thinking more like an adult by the time he/she is at the convenient age of seventeen or eighteen or whatever it is. Like thinking more of food and boots for his/her men than about the next skilful envelopment to do against an enemy's flank (not again!). No more spunky innocent teenager military geniuses(TM), I guess.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Oh well.
[info]aurorae90
2005-06-16 02:46 am UTC (link)
My story has a teenage character that without concious planning became a typical teenage kid. Except no super powers - in fact, he's kinda weird. Obsessed, even. Anyways, this is a great rant for me because now he won't be so much like the others. He can think for himself at last :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Oh well.
[info]sailor_tech
2005-06-16 03:05 am UTC (link)
How about a spunky innocent teenager who spent a lot time back at the headquarters. They could have a good grasp of the back end of logistics, having done that as a staff puke. And as a teenager full of spunk and out for glory, want to try out the fanicful tactics they have read about.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Oh well.
[info]l_clausewitz
2005-06-16 08:31 am UTC (link)
I'd still wonder why the administrative experience hasn't chastised them, though. Administrative work is more engaging and affecting than most fantasy authors would have us believe--and has a much greater effect on the administrative worker's psychology than many would admit. Moreover, it is rather inconceivable that the teenager would have been assigned to the administrative work without an adult mentor or instructor who could guide them and hammer some common sense into their heads :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Oh well.
[info]dwg
2005-06-16 10:56 am UTC (link)
Amen.

You shouldn always be nice to the admin folk, because they're the ones that really get things done. You wouldn't believe the crap that gets handed to me from Up On High. If a teen's handed this sort of stuff and they'd rather be elsewhere and flake - rest assured, they'll suddenly find themselves unemployed. I've foudn that you have to be a quick learner and keep a level head when dealing with stupid people. More often than not, that stupid person is your boss.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Oh well.
[info]sailor_tech
2005-06-16 02:39 pm UTC (link)
I was thinking that they had the admin / logistics hammered into them from the adult mentor. But that does not mean common sense, nor does that mean that the mentor knew anything about actual combat as opposed to logistics / admin. I was assuming they were at headquarters, where logisticics is numbers, not real people. There is usually also no glory in logistics, so their first "real" troop leadership / combat position they make the classic mistakes of thinking the book tactics will work.


1) sorry if this is poorly written, been out drinking in Naha all night.

2) seen plenty of good engineers who have NO sense of logistics or supply systems majorly mess up.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Oh well.
[info]l_clausewitz
2005-06-16 03:52 pm UTC (link)
Unfortunately textbook tactics are the ones that work...

Believe it or not, most military geniuses didn't think up their tactical plans all by themselves. They freely admitted that they adapted them or even stole them outright from previous commanders--and what's that if not textbook? The really innovative ones are the strategically innovative ones, and stategy is all about politics and logistics.

It's a little-known fact that deskjobbers sent into the role of field commanders are usually more succesful than front-line officers thrown into administrative roles.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Oh well.
[info]l_clausewitz
2005-06-16 04:46 pm UTC (link)
The concept of "headquarters," where "logistics is numbers, not real people" is a fundamentally flawed one. Headquarters people--those who take the task of feeding, clothing, and maintaining a fighting force--tend to have a closer connection to the grunts and a much more solid grasp of reality than the military groupies that think more about flashy tactics and all that stuff. They're more likely to see the soldiers as human beings, and therefore they're often in a better position to understand these soldiers' limitations. Actually, in military history circles the stereotype of the "bookish military geek" is the kind of person who can name all manners of tactical evolutions but don't have a picture of how to raise and train a group of men into an effective army, much less of actually making those men do what he wants them to do. The negative connotation of the stereotype is so strong because it is so much more difficult to make these people get a down-to-earth, practical view of warfare than to teach an administrative staff (who already has good organizational skills from his administrative experience) to handle troops in the field.

Maybe the conception arises from the predilection of modern military theory for battle-oriented strategies. This is entirely inappropriate, as before the advent of industrial warfare in the 19th century armies were relatively small and quite expensive to maintain; risking them in battle was neither the most prudent nor the most practical way of gaining victory. Laying waste the enemy's land was more likely to produce the desired economic impact and a steady stream of loot; taking cities and fortified strongpoints by means of sieges and surprise attacks tended to give more permanent results than engaging in pitched battles; and of course, the risk of defeat in battle was too real to be ignored. Avoiding battles is not a violation of the principle of the Offensive since it was usually possible to take a strategically offensive posture without engaging the enemy in a tactical situation. Men raised in the world of administration tend to grasp these facts more naturally than those raised to be warriors.

The popular conception of great generals who were poor administrators is also a mistaken one--just look at Richard I, the stereotypical warrior king, and the classic cavalier William Marshal. They were long regarded as models of chivalry who cared much for glory and scoffed at administration but historical research reveals a very different picture. It turns out that they were very good administrators indeed.

So, militarily inept spunky innocent teenagers haring off on a daring attack are fine enough as they are. But a spunky innocent teenage military genius without administrative common sense is essentially impossible, even if we take account of the factor of reincarnation. FYI, Jordan's Mat Cauthon was one of the most unrealistic generals I've ever read.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]pico_the_great
2005-06-16 01:51 am UTC (link)
or the true extent of her secret powers

...or the or true extent of their own secret powers. "Guess what, Sheila, I'm a wizard."

Sheila: Noooooo oh wait that makes sense. Surely you can't be dangerous. Be my friend? (plot goes on.)


Good rant. I've only written, first-person, two adult characters so far (only one if gods don't count), but I'm trying to change that. Adults offer more opportunities to mess with the character's mind plotty little things like family and prejudices and bias and needing to pay the rent or so. They're more difficult to write when you've never been one - or haven't yet, anyway - but that's what questions are for.

(Reply to this)


[info]dwg
2005-06-16 02:12 am UTC (link)
Yay! Kim Wilkins! Aussie author!

I haven't read The Autumn Castle - I keep looking at it in the store and wish it would come down in price. Same with The Resurrectionists. I have read The Infernal and Grimoire and loved them both. It's so nice to read a couple of Australian books that don't smack of stereotypical Australian literature. No rural setting, no Strine drawls and as much slang as you can cram into a sentence, and no monotonous hardship. Ye gods, I got fed up with that in high school.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

(Deleted post)

[info]dwg
2005-06-18 11:32 am UTC (link)
We had it practically shoved down our throats in high school. It was that, or Shakespeare, and by all accounts the Shakespeare wasn't any of the good stuff. The highlight of the semester was comparing Kenneth Brannaugh's Hamlet with Mel Gibson's version. I didn't do that English class, so had to put up with the Aussie literature. Granted, some people in the class found reading an autobiography of an Aboriginal woman growing up in the 50s, or the fictional story of a girl and her sisters moving to rural Queensland and having to deal with life etc. incredibly thrilling.

Now, if it were a girl and her sisters moving to rural Queensland and having to deal with a zombie plague, then I'd have some interest in the story.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]blunder_buss
2005-06-16 03:52 am UTC (link)
Hmm. I was plotting to make a character a naive kind of person, but having them as an adult would be really interesting. Especially with point five. Any adult would have much more to lose than the average teenager.

*plotbunnies spawn*

Thanks!

(Reply to this)


[info]mindelemental
2005-06-16 05:49 am UTC (link)
I actually want to write a SF story some time that would, arguably, fall into this category -- with a hero in his mid-twenties becoming progressively disillusioned by fighting in one futile military intervention after another, culminating in a great-power war, and eventually deciding to support a policy of active conquest, on the grounds that "one realm means peace" (to paraphrase Stannis). You've given me some nifty food for thought.

(Reply to this)


[info]caremel
2005-06-16 01:33 pm UTC (link)
I'm desperate to write a story about an adult protagonist (teenage ones are so dull and predictable). It makes for a much more complex dynamic w/in the story. However, I'm not sure I could really write properly about an adult protagonist, being only (sadly) a teenager myself. DO you think it is possible for me to write a convincing tale despite my own naïveté? I worry about this because I personally don't want to write a story about a teenager growing up, a particular genre that I find difficult to enjoy. However if I ever do get the courage to start one, I have a handy source! Lovely rant :).
~Caremel

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]pico_the_great
2005-06-16 06:54 pm UTC (link)
(teenage ones are so dull and predictable)

Not necessarily: like anything, teenage protagonists can be good if handled well, terrible if not. Sadly there are a thousand of the latter for every one of the former.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]caremel
2005-06-16 08:40 pm UTC (link)
you are right- I rather exaggerated, as I have had an surfeit of teenage heroines who have badly handled and ridiculous
~Caremel

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]l_clausewitz
2005-06-17 12:53 pm UTC (link)
And, of course, the teenage protagonists that are handled well tend to be the ones that don't subscribe to the usual teenage stereotype.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]jennifer_dunne
2005-06-16 02:22 pm UTC (link)
Another great rant. :-) I find I always go over your points carefully, with that nervous twitter of "Please tell me I haven't committed any of these sins in my dearly beloved prose..."

This time around, I found I like playing with point #2, and making my characters be loners for some reason. But because they're adults, they realize this is a bizarre and unusual state, and have all the concomitant stress of rationalizing their behavior, wishing they were behaving differently, and hating the situation that forces them to behave this way...

And per point #3, when an adult realizes one of their core beliefs is incorrect, it can be HUGELY shattering, because it's not just the belief...it's all the things they've done over the years in support of that belief, which would now be insupportable.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]silenceleigh
2005-06-16 07:58 pm UTC (link)
And the fact that it's so shattering means that it's a lot harder to get them to learn that lesson. People sense something coming and they go into serious denial, because they're protecting themselves.

You have to sort of nibble around the edges at it, a lot of the time. Sometimes, even in the face of the most glaring things that contradict what they beleive, people can still manage to justify their beliefs in things.

I'm currently working with an amazingly stubborn older (she's about fifty years old) character who's really good at that. I've started working her around, but it's taking a lot of effort.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]l_clausewitz
2005-06-17 12:50 pm UTC (link)
Actually the good thing with adult characters is that they don't always have to learn the lesson--not because they're "ignorant," "inexperienced," or "distracted" like teenagers, but because they can refuse to learn the lesson and assume that life would just go on like normal without them learning the lesson.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]angelan
2005-06-16 04:39 pm UTC (link)
A novel whose principal subject is the moral, psychological, and intellectual development of a usually youthful main character.

Most people here are learning prose tips. Me? I'll settle for a new word in my vocabulary ;)

I generally prefer an adult protagonist, though I have no idea why. Maybe because they're marginally less likely to do something totally stupid, I guess. (Oddly enough, this is especially true for me in videogames. Present me with a sixteen year old saving the world and I tend to back away in horror.)

Autumn Castle has been glaring at me in the bookshops, but I just finally caved and got a Game of Thrones, so I imagine I'll be busy for a while.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Yep...
[info]bardessc
2005-06-16 11:43 pm UTC (link)
True dat, angelan. I have a really hard time believing that a teenager can save the world. And I used to read a lot of books where teenagers saved the world. Not saying it can't be done, of course, I just haven't read those books yet. :-)
Great rant, limyaeel, this really applies to my protagonist. I'm happy to see that I'm not missing much, at least according to this rant.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]holyschist
2005-06-17 01:56 am UTC (link)
Ursula K. LeGuin's Tehanu comes to mind.

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…