Twins in Fantasyland

I think I should give you a warning and say, right away, that this post might come off as ranty. This is a topic on which I am easily annoyed.

Twins are cool.* Readers and writers seem to like the idea of two human being so close they spent nine months stuck next to one another in their mom's womb. Like it makes them share something extra special. 

Here's the problem. There is a ton of clichés about twins in fantasy, and threading too close to almost every one of them will make your twins (or their relationship) two-dimensional and mediocre. I'm extra-sensitive to this, probably because I have a twin sister and some of these spill over in real life.

So, let's take a look at them!

The Telepathic Twins

This is the one I hear the most about outside of novels and movies. I don't know why and when people started to believe twins had this telepathic link between them. They don't. I don't get sad when my sister is sad. I don't feel her pains and joys. And I certainly don't hear her voice in my head, though I sure can imagine what she'd say. This is an annoying myth in real-life.

In speculative fiction, well, you have a little more leeway. Magic could explain the telepathy. In a world where such connections are frequent between close friends or members of the same family, well, I'm willing to admit twins might have increased chance of developing a link.

If the only trace of telepathy in your novels, ever, is those two shiny special twins... Cut it. Seriously. Randomly giving twins powers no one else can have is bad. It's a serious affront to all your worldbuilding. It discredits the characters. It discredits the story. Just don't do it unless it is completely in line with everything else.

And even then, consider not doing it. For me, m'kay?

The Mirror Twins

This is perhaps the most frequent and most annoying of them, because it reeks of rushed characterization. There's typically two types of mirror: the morality mirror and the ability mirror.

The first is our classic Good Twin/Evil Twin. Two twins were separated at birth, one grows to be a valorous knight and the other an evil conqueror? I'm sure that rings a bell. Or perhaps they grew together, and one kept bullying the other.

The problem here is that there is often little to no explanations as to why one turns out so well and not the other. You get a little more room when they were separated, but the moment your readers see "twins separated at birth", they're likely to roll your eyes and not give you the chance.

The morality mirror twins is alluring, I know. It's a blast when done well. There are ways to make it less cliché. Play in the shades of gray instead of having it all black and white. Put the Good Twin on the wrong side, maybe? If you must make one change the others' belief, why not make it the evil twin convincing his gentle counterpart? There are other options here. If you must have a good and an evil twin, play with them.

The second, the ability mirror, can actually be combined with the first for maximum Claudie-Facepalm. The ability is when one twins' powers or appearance is the exact opposite of his other twins. One has Fire Magic, the other Water. One is a great warrior, the other a scrawny wizard. You know the drill. Intelligent vs Stupid. Paranoid vs Naive. Blond hair vs Black hair. Scientist vs Artist. The physical ability mirror is very frequent with fraternal twins.

Because really, if they're not going to look the same, they must look opposite, otherwise what's the point?  (Feel free to imagine me banging my head on the desk. Because I am)

The Copycat Twins (and the switch-place plot)

We all have read a novel where one twin takes the other's place. Where identical twins are concerned, this is a frequent plot device. It can work, if they aren't supposed to switch for a long time.

This is one of those I'm less bothered with. Most of the time when a writer does this, he has taken the time to give distinct personality to the twins, and the difficulty of hiding the differences is where the tension comes from.

Here's a reminder, though: identical twins, despite their names, aren't the exact same. There are always differences that allow a quick identification, especially as the twins get older (because environmental factors have an increasingly big influence on appearance). Yes, twins can switch place. In face of those who know them well, however, it isn't likely to last.

The Point of This

Here's the message, because I'm not just writing this to vent. I swear I'm not!

Twins, identical or not, are two separate human beings. They deserve to have complex personalities, unique outlooks on life and abilities that do not depend on their other twin. They have to be someone on their own. Build your twins as two humans who just happened to be born on the same day, not as a single unit meant to be together.

To end on a positive note, there are a lot of cool twins in litterature. I don't hate twins by default. In fact, when you get past my initial reserves, I tend to give unconditional love to cool twin characters. Here are a few...

Jaime and Cersei Lannister, from A Song of Ice and Fire  (though I do hate Cersei on her own. grr)

Fred and George Weasley, from Harry Potter.  (of course they're here!)

Raistlin and Cameron Majere, from the Dragonlance Chronicles. (they're a case study of all these cliches done in a way that actually works for me!)

There are others, such as Luke and Leila. And I bet you can come up with more! Who are your favourite twins?

Empathy For the Characters

Last Tuesday I went to the theatre, to see the newest of Wajdi Mouawad's play. You probably don't know who that is and because I'm a big fan, I will tell you. He is the playwright behind Incendies, which this year was Canada's runner up for the Foreign Movie Oscar. It's a fantastic movie. Get your hands on it, if you can!

As much as I love Mouawad's work, something about his latest baby didn't work for me. Thankfully, I could tell what was wrong right away.

I never sympathised about his main character. I liked the two secondary ones, but their emotional stakes in the story aren't as high. They aren't driving it.

Don't make this mistake. If your readers don't identify to the MC on some level, they won't care. And then you might have the best story in the world, it won't matter.

Here are a few ways to make the connection between your reader and your character. There are more in James Scott Bell's Plot and Structure, by the way!

1. Identification
Identification is an easy one, but if your MC isn't human, it's an important one. What about him makes him like most people? He probably has flaws, dreams and fears that are shared by a lot of human beings. Find these elements and highlight them early on (show them). Prove your character is human despite all his differences and you have reader identification.

2. Sympathy
There are a lot of ways to achieve sympathy for your character. Put her through hardships. Make her vulnerable. Put something she loves in jeopardy. Readers will cheer for someone in difficulty and this is a good way to make an early connection.

3. Inner Conflict
Characters who are certain of themselves, who have no doubts and no fears, aren't that interesting. We're not like that. We question everything we do. Bring your character's inner conflicts to the surface and we'll feel for your character.


There are more ways to get your readers to like your character, of course. Choose whichever you want, but make sure you use one.

Reader empathy will keep them reading.

And happy spring everyone! There's still snow everywhere on the ground here. :)

The Character Story

**The ideas here come from Orson Scott Card in How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy. This is my take on them.**

Aah, Character. How often have we been asked, as writers, if we're more plot-driven or character-driven? I'm of the opinion a character should always drive the plot – that is, he should be proactive. This doesn't mean he consciously chose to be a part of the events. A character might be proactive if he takes a few actions and, before he knows it, he's in a big mess. This is what happens to Richard Mayhew in Neverwhere, by Neil Gaiman. He stops to save a dirty, bleeding girl on the street, and is irremediably pulled into the story.

In a Character Story, however, the character is the plot. A character story will be about a character's attempt to change himself or his relation to others. He might be discontent with his current role in the family or close neighbourhood. He might hate what he's become and try to change himself.

The character story starts when your main character decides to make these changes and ends either in his success or failure. A father who attempts to reconcile with his son after a decade is a character story. He might succeed and grow closer to his son, or his attempts might be constantly rebuffed until he abandons them.

My February Shiny Idea, Fezim Aulm, is a Character Story. It begins with the MC’s admittance in a wizard asylum and his decision to ‘fix himself’ as much as he can, and it ends with his acceptance that while he might change, he can never make up for his past actions. There is a lot happening, but my story structure milestones revolve around his character evolution and, in planning my novel, I often relied on James Scott Bell’s character layers.

While I find the Character Story structure is rarer in fantasy as the main one, it's quite often there as a subplot. After all, events of the magnitude of what your throw at your characters should change them. That's the whole fun of it!


The point of a Character Story is this change. The character arc doesn't support the main plot. It is the main plot. 

Protagonists, Main Characters and Viewpoint Characters

Yesterday, I learned these weren't the same thing. Well, I knew about the viewpoint character already, but I always considered the other two terms to be the same. Orson Scott Card establishes a clear distinction between Main Character and Protagonist, however, which I believe is great to keep in mind.

Yes, most of the time, you'll want your MC to be your protagonist. But this doesn't have to be the case, and it can enhance your story to make them different. So what's the difference?

Protagonist: The protagonist is the character we're rooting for. He has our sympathy. We agree with his goals and we want him to win by the end of the novel. If your MC is a hero type, he'll be the protagonist, too. Star Wars' protagonists are Luke, Leia and Han Solo.

Main Character: The Main Character is the character whose actions are driving the plot. His character evolution and final decisions will decide of the novel's end. He has everyone's fate in his hands. If your protagonist is proactive, he's likely to be the main character, too.

Sometimes, however, the main character is the villain. This is true for Star Wars. Luke and co. spend the first two movies reacting to what Darth Vader does. And what is the third's climax? When Vader chooses his son over the Empire.

Viewpoint Character: Sometimes it's best when the viewpoint character is neither the protagonist nor the main character. In mysteries, for example, the POV character is often a sidekick, because the detective knows the murderer a fair bit before the climax (think Doctor Watson and Sherlock here). Most of the time it's advisable to keep the POV on either the MC or the protagonist, however, as this is where the action will be.

Writing and Roleplaying

When I mentionned that my main character was born from a roleplaying game in my last post, a surprising number of you commented that it happened to them on a frequent basis. I used to have trouble accepting the strong influence of the games on some of my work, and the lesser but-no-less-important presence in the others. I came to the craft of writing through roleplaying, but today I can tell what works, and what doesn't.

Characters
This is what I transfer the most from my RPGs. I have created characters I love through the years, with a well-developped and often under-exploited background. It's a truth of gaming (especially online) that half the hooks you build into your backstory will never surface again. I love to explore those subplots. Sometimes they even become the main intrigue.

I find that character personalities translate well from RP to writing. Sometimes, however, changing their abilities and races might serve your story. There is a lot of 'epic' with RP, and I find not all of it fits with my style.

Plots
Perhaps this is only me, but the only plot I have kept from a RP was one that focused on a family's internal relationships. I find that most plot require heavy work to fit the narrative structure. Pluck elements and premises if you like them, but I don't recommend clinging to all scenes or to the way the story evolved.

EDIT: It just occured to me that a lot of the plots I've reused are Character Arcs. It makes sense, considering I mostly import characters.

Setting
While I have changed settings between a story from a RP and the novel form, I think this element can be transfered easily. You need to think about what you want (high or low magic, for example) and what serves the story best. DnD is a mash-up of many mythologies. Take the time to decide what you need, and take the time to check on the original myths, too.

By the way, this is not to say you should dump all orcs and trolls and elves and dwarves. When you write a novel, however, you need to think them through, explain them, and know what makes your setting unique.

I'm sure there is a lot more to be said, and this is a topic I'm likely to revisit. Roleplaying games are an incredible source of inspiration for me, but adapting them comes with a lot of problems. The potential is there, however, and a good writer knows how to tap it.

The Charismatic Character

I have a weak spot for charismatic leaders. Often they are passionate, stubborn, witty and hopeful. They create a dynamic story. They might try to move mountains, and that makes one hell of a story.

Charisma, however, isn't easy to define. We feel it when we meet someone charismatic. We know. There's one thing harder than defining charisma, though: rendering it with words.

When you ask others what Charisma is, they'll say it's a presence. It's harder to convey charisma than it is physical strength.

So what's today about? First, a definition of charisma and second how I've seen it done.

The definition
This is a tough one, but there are a few characteristics common to charismatic communicators.

Passion. The charismatic is passionate about his topic. He knows it from top to bottom, and is animated with a visceral passion to share it. He loves this topic and he must get others to love it too.

Assurance. The charismatic does not doubt. He is convinced of his message and speaks with the assurance of one who knows he'll achieve his ends.

Dynamic. This one goes with passion. Passion will push emotion in the charismatic's tone and movements. Someone who stays put isn't interesting.

Empathy. The charismatic can read someone else's reaction. He picks up hints of tiredness. He can tell when he's losing his audience, and he knows how to react to it. He's in a dialogue with the others.

Good politicians are charismatic. They win crowds with their words. It can be both a good and a bad thing. Think Hitler and Obama. They're both charismatics, but what they attempt to achieve is hardly in the same spectrum of morality.

How do you do this?

I'm afraid I don't know a hard and fast trick to building a convincing charismatic character. Those I recall from novels, however, share a few recurring traits.

Wits.They are good with words. Wit is hard to do because everyone has his brand of humour, but a few well-placed answer can convince your reader this guy knows how to talk.

Passion. A character reacting strongly to an issue early on shows passion about it. Charismatic characters are convinced of their shit and need to communicate it. They won't let one slide.

The eyes. Oh boy, the eyes. This is a tough call because characters with intense eyes can be quite cliché. But the charismatic needs to catch attention and hold it. Someone who'll look straight at you when he talks and hold your gaze is far more convincing. Don't abuse the eyes. But don't ignore them either.

And if you're writing fantasy and tempted to have a charismatic leader, do something for me. Don't put him at the head of an army. Not that it's a bad thing, but I'm craving for novels that dodge bloodsheds (or mostly dodge, anyway) in favour of other solutions. Charismatic leaders are perfect tools for swaying crowds in other directions. Try them!

J. S. Bell and the Character Arc

I bought James Scott Bell's Plot and Structure over the holidays in the hopes of helping me unravel the criss-crossing threads of my plot in a timely, tension-building fashion. It's important to know the canvas that supports a story and how to use it to your novel's advantage.

I can't possibly make a comprehensive list of how much I learned. The techniques in there are simple but efficient and I feel a lot less likely to err when I jump into my second draft. There's the LOCK system, the two doorways, the explanations on what beginning, middles and endings need, the common plot structures, the frequent problems and how to fix them... everything.

Out of all this, however, two elements caught my attention: the character arc and tension in your scenes.

 The Character Arc

I like to think I have a strong sense of characters. I used to roleplay a lot and am used to centering stories around a smattering of characters and their evolution. A good story may take a character through a series of events until he vanquishes adversity. A great story will have this adversity change him irrevocably.

I was pleased when I noticed Bell devoted an entire chapter of Plot and Structure to this. The Character Arc can be a subplot, such as your MC learning something important just before the 'final battle', or it can be the point of the story.

Humans often resist change, however. This is good, because it creates tension. But how do you change them?

His basic idea was that every character has a core self-image, and that surrounding it are four layers of protection. These are, starting from the center: beliefs, values, attitudes and opinions.

I drew this, by the way. Super talented, eh?

 The idea is that a change on the outer layer, opinions, will have repercussions on the inner one. If you can change a few opinions, then you'll change an attitude. And with a few different attitude, you might change values. And onward like this, until your character is forced to change his self-image.

I loved this.  Starting with small changes before hitting the big ones is a great way to bring about a smooth character arc.

I'll be back with tension in the scenes on Wednesday!

The Two Sides of a Relationship

I have seen many writers boil down a relationship to a single tag. 'Friendship'. 'Love'. 'Hatred'. 'Rivals'. It's a necessary simplification, one that helps us grasp quickly what is the backbone of the relationship between two characters, but it brings about its dangers.

First, because relationships are more complex than this. Having friends doesn't mean the same for everyone, and even one person will not think the same way about two different friends. There are nuances to every relationship that depend on the characters, and that make it unique.

There is something else that makes every relationship complex, and that is not as often reflected in writing: two characters in a relationship will not think the same way about each other.

The typical example of this is the unrequited love interest. Character A loves Character B with a fiery passion, but Character B couldn't care less.

There are so many other ways this could be exploited, however! I think it's worth it to consider the world from another perspective than the hero's, and see what the surrounding cast think of him, and of each other.

• Character A could think Character B is a rival, and feel the need to prove himself the better of the two, while Character B is only seeking a friend. 
• The  hero can have a sidekick, and believe him to be super loyal, whereas the sidekick spends his time wishing he was with another knight.
• Character A might confide anything in Character B, but Character B seeks comfort elsewhere when he needs it.
• Character A can think of B as nothing but a colleague, whereas Character B thinks of A as a close friend.

No two characters approach friendships, love interests and rivalries the same way. Take the time to consider how they define these relationships. Watch for differences in how two characters view one another. Bringing them to life can add a layer of tension to any scene or be a bad surprise for your hero. And if you have more than one POV, you get to contrast these opinions, too!

If this isn't fun, I'm not sure what is!

I Like to Have Many Friends

Imaginary friends, but friends nonetheless!

Large casts of characters are my friends. It's not rational. I just end up with them, no matter how I try to dwindle the numbers. This is not a bias against small-crew story. It's how my mind works.

There are challenges that come with writing when you have so many characters that influence your story. They have to be easy to remember, and you need to convey their personality as much as you can with the little 'screen' time they get.

Every word matters.

Never miss an opportunity to make your character more distinct. This is always true, but it's even more important with large casts. Give them habits. Make their voices strong. Exaggerate their traits a little, so that they become more obvious. Unless this character is often in scenes, you can't afford to make him bland.

Large casts can get your readers lost, but when handled well, they make your story complex and colourful. I just hope I have the talent to pull it off!

Contradicting PoVs

There is one thing I absolutely love to do with PoV characters, and that's to have them contradict each other. Neither characters are lying, but their respective perspective on life reflects on how they narrate the story. There's a few ways this can become apparent.

1. Their opinion about others. Two characters can have wildly different opinions about the same third character. Say this third man is a king. The courtier who has just been awarded bigger lands may love this king, and describe him as just and generous. The king's wife, whom he hits in a bout of anger, will disagree with that. Or the people dying of hunger in the streets while he holds banquets might not be so keen on calling him 'generous'.

2. Their opinion about each other. This one is even funnier, if you ask me. A relationship isn't always equal on both sides. One character will not always reciprocate the other's feelings.

I just read a perfect example of this is Guy Gavriel Kay's A Song for Arbonne. The chancellor is madly in love with the countess, Signe. He knows it is an impossible relationship, and he has a wife and kids, but he considers this eternal love a simple fact of his life. Signe, however, has no clues about this love. She wonders at times what the chancellor thinks of her and concludes he must believe her weak, and in need of support.

This is fun. It's fun to read and it's fun to write. It's also quite realistic. Not everyone I consider a close friend thinks the same of me, and vice-versa. I often read about this kind of diverging opinions with unrequited love subplots, but it's not limited to it! Go wild.

3. Their versions of events. Two different POVs can tell the very same scene in completely different ways. What a rebel leader thinks of an oppressing government's fall is quite different to how this government's leader will feel about it. Pick any two characters in a scene, and they should have different opinion on what's going on.

There's nothing like contradicting PoVs to add some shades of grey to characters and worlds. You don't have to visit everyone's head to do this. Two characters with different backgrounds are more than enough to bring out the "contradictions" in your story and in your world.

Choosing your PoV(s)

I admit I have never managed to write an entire novel from a single Point of View. I write with large casts of characters. Sometimes it is because my plot spans major events in my fantasy world, but not always. Even in a small-ish setting, such as a single city, I end up with a large cast of significant characters.

If I let myself go wild, I would have a dozen different PoVs all the time.

Restricting myself is always hard. I have to abandon characters I love and let them evolve only in the background. I could use omniscient, of course, but I feel that requires a certain level of skill I've yet to attain. I prefer to stick with third limited, with one character for every scene.

How to choose, though?

I feel every PoV should count. It should be so essential to the story that if you remove it, the novel no longer makes sense. How do you determine that? What a PoV brings is not limited to its influence on the plot. When considering PoVs, I ask myself a few questions, and here they are for your enjoyment.

- Could every information a PoV bring be told in another scene?
- What is the purpose of this knowledge? Is it only to raise tension, to let the reader know something the character doesn't? I personally don't think that is always a good idea.
- How is this PoV's personality compared to the other PoVs? Does the character have an unique voice?
- Are there other things about the PoV that makes it unique? Is s/he from another country? Another social standing? Does he bring something fresh to the story? Is s/he the antagonist?

One of the main reasons I enjoy different PoV is those last questions. I'm a firm believer in approaching a conflict from multiple angles. A single PoV introduces a bias I don't like. On the other hand, I love to have a few characters with strong and contradicting bias. I like to think it adds a depth to my story.

Sensory Deprivation

One morning, nearly a year ago, I stood up after sitting on my foot for too long. I don't know if it ever touched the ground. It must have, but I never felt. All I remember is falling afterwards, and my sister laughing at me.

This, of course, had happened countless times before. Both the numb foot and the fall (my balance is not very good). That particular time, though, was special, because it sparked something in the writer in me. Questions, and a character!

I wondered how it would feel to have all our senses dulled out. How do you cope when walking is challenge, when you can't see well at a distance, when you can't feel hot/cold, when you have to make everyone repeat and when you can't smell a thing? How does that influence someone's daily life, and how would it have happened?

There are multiple ways to answer this. My character was undead-ish, and in addition to the effects named above, he also could not feel pain. He could still die,  if burnt, but otherwise, there were a bunch of things he no longer needed to do. I imagined him trying to live a normal life, to settle down among the other citizens, to get used to not feeling the wind on his skin (he was from a windy city). I thought it would all be rather cool. I still do! I just never found a home for him.

These ideas begged for another question, though. How would that influence descriptions? It becomes harder to place the setting when you have to limit what the character receives as sensory information. I think it becomes a lot more interesting too. Of course, you have to be consistent, but with limited senses, you bring a very different perspective. The same is true for blind or deaf characters too. I'm not sure it would work well for an entire novel, but for a few scenes or short stories, I love it.

This character still needs a home. I will find one for him. Not now, though... I really need to focus on my two WIP, and not jump to a third so soon!

What about you? Do you have any characters with malfunctionning senses? How does it play in your story?

Unraveling the plot

My fantasy ideas, when I first get them, are never very well-defined. I will have a scene or a character, but nothing else. There are obvious things about this character, but for every thing I am certain of, there will be a dozen I don't know yet.

It is, in many ways, like coming upon a big knot. You can see certain threads, and you know there's a splendid tapestry behind, but you first have to entangle them. You have to separate each thread from the others and see what it is made of before you can weave it back into a splendid work of art.

I don't think there's a single good way to do this. Each writer goes through his own process. This is only mine.

I start with the characters. It helps that most of the time, a character is the first thing I imagine, but even if I have a scene in mind, I start with the charaters. And I ask questions.

Who is this guy? What does he want? Why? Does he have family and friends? Where does he live? How does that shape his personality? Is there something peculiar about his appearance? If this is a scene, how and why did he get here?

Every answer to these questions should bring out more. Often, the setting will influence this character. No, wait, scratch that. Always, the setting will influence your character. If you know your world already, see where it connects with him. If you don't, see what could've shaped your character this way.

Always, ask questions. Pay close attention to the answers, especially the whys. Every time I do this, it's like pulling on a thread in the knot. Yes, some will tighten it and only make the big picture harder to see, but you will find the right thread, and the knot will fall apart.

There are knots along the way, though. Knots in the bigger knots. You'll find you have a beginning and an ending, and key scenes in-between... and yet, there is still that stretch in the story where you don't know what happens.

What do I do? I start with the characters.

How would he go from point A to point B? Isn't there someone that would be opposed to this? Who is that someone? What does he want, and why? Does he have family and friends? Where does he live? How does that shape his personality? Is there something peculiar about his appearance?

And thus a scene is born. I talked about ambitious characters before. This is why I love them.

Ask questions. Give answers. Explain the answers. Unravel the plot knot into threads, and then weave them back together to create your novel.

Ambitious Characters, and Why I Love Them

Ambitious characters make my plot move. They look at the world around them, shake their heads and declare "Nah, that won't cut it." Then they do what they can to make it change.

Sometimes they'll be impulsive and hurl themselves headlong into danger, headless for consequences and intent solely on their goals. Sometimes they'll be careful and considerate, and they will plan their next action before they try to achieve anything. It doesn't matter. They have an ambition, and from it is born a story.

It's no surprise that ambitious characters are often villains. Heck, I think today "ambitious" is a negative term for many. And I love my villains (when I have a character that can be easily coined with this term, which is far from frequent), but I think if every ambitious man (or woman) is a villain, then you're limiting yourself.

I think most visionaries are men with ambition. They see the big scheme of things, and they dream of a better world. Revolutions are never easy, but when you have characters that have the strength of character and the means to make them happen, you can easily craft an epic tale.

All it takes is one proactive character acting to get all the reactive characters involved.

But there's more.

This character will carry the plot on his shoulders, and whenever you are at a loss for what to write next, you just have to turn to him, and he will tell you what he wants, and how he thinks he can get it. No matter what, he will strive to achieve his goal, and on his way there, he will create conflict.

When you have an ambitious character, he becomes your plot. You don't need to force it; it'll happen whether you like it or not. And I, for one, like it very much.