Nov
How realistic is too realistic?
Earlier this week, I read a post on the Manuscript Mavens blog about verisimilitude in Point of View and Characterization. The mavens were talking about how to make male characters sound different than female characters, and that got me thinking: how much realism is necessary, from a reader standpoint, versus how much realism is too true-to-life?
For example, none of us would buy, say, a gangster hero whose internal monologue coos over the embroidery pattern of the heroine’s stone washed Diesel jeans. Best clothing-awareness we could hope for is whether or not her derrière looked deliciously smackable and if her belly button ring was showing above the low-rise waistband, right?
A fellow writer gave me a critique one time where she thought my hero thought with his nether regions too much. (In one scene, he was awakened from an erotic dream and a bit turned on by the heroine’s barely-there outfit.) Some people might say that guys thinking with that part of their anatomy is about as true-to-life as it comes. (Ahem.) My hero doesn’t force himself on the heroine or anything–they don’t even kiss in that scene!–he just happens to be aroused due to the situation, which I felt was realistic.
I recently read another book, however, in which the hero was *always* raging against the throes of passion every time he saw/heard/thought of the heroine, regardless of circumstance. This might also be fairly accurate to guy behavior, I don’t know. But as a reader, I found it unbelievable and didn’t buy the sexual tension at all.
The other side of that stick is the graphic nature of guy thoughts. Guys may in fact instinctively appraise every woman they see in terms of four letter words and their potential in bed. Do I want my hero sizing up the waitress while dining out with the heroine? Not so much. (Unless it’s “that” kind of book… *g)
On the maven site, I mentioned that I don’t think there’s a line between realistic and readable–I think there’s a gradient, and it’s up to the authors to decide where the story falls. There will always be someone who interprets from either extreme. Authors need to acknowledge potential reader fallout as well as be true to their concept of characterization.
So I ask you: How true-to-life is TOO true-to-life? How “manly” should a hero really be–or not be?
Omgosh! That’s too funny!
I think your situation, the guy waking up with “a rising situation” would be totally true to life! And also funny lol.
I think you need growth in the character to keep them realistic and true-to-life. I mean, you can’t have the guy who is after anything with a pulse still that same person at the end of a story and call it good. While I know there are really guys out there like that, that’d be too much, at least not without major reforming.
We (or at least I) want to see the transition from being the “ready to pounce at anything” to “ready to pounce only you, forever”.
I agree with you, that as long as you can move the character with some sort of growth (aside from his pants) that it can be realistic and readable.
However, this is just my opinion.
November 30th, 2007 at 2:57 pmHaven, that’s a good point. We can’t forget to take character arcs into account when deciding when it’s appropriate for a character to act a certain way. Perhaps they can get away with more at the beginning of the story before they’ve learned their lesson about life. Of course, depending on how far they must go to change, there’s always the risk of alienating the reader up front with a *too* bad character…
November 30th, 2007 at 3:16 pmI agree Erica. You should have a bit more freedom with a character in the beginning than the end. There has to be some type of bar to raise and lower for all the characters.
That little saying, a pig is a pig, is a pig. Sounds like someone is a pig lol. But it’s true. You can’t have a character that has no goals and is a “fill in the blank” be your hero. If he is, he’d better get some lessons learned and start bettering himself. Or at the very least have a damn good reason why he was like that.
I’ve read several books where the hero was a jerk in the beginning but then attitude slowly shifted into a person I could like.
What I’m wondering is how do you keep a readers attention long enough to allow the hero grow into someone they’ll adore. I keep thinking reformed villains lol.
November 30th, 2007 at 3:39 pmGreat post, Erica! I agree with you. I feel your hero was totally realistic to be aroused upon waking from an erotic dream and/ or to see the heroine skimpily dressed. My own heroes fall somewhere in the middle. They are definitely guys with guy thoughts and sex on the brain half the time (or a lot), but there is a time and place for everything. Plus once my heroes meet their heroines I like them to be a one-woman man. Though they might have been womanizers in the past, they are ready and willing to change and learn how to be what the heroine deserves.
November 30th, 2007 at 4:39 pmNicole
Hmm, interesting subject. I think once you’re interested in a person - there definitely is attraction in the air whenever you meet. Or so I remember from oh so long ago when I was having a crush last
So I can definitely buy the guy having some not-too-proper thoughts about the heroine. But of course, as with everything, there’s a line to be drawn somewhere of what is realistic and what isn’t.
Which - as has been said - is up to each author to find for themselves. I think we can all somehow tell what we feel is realistic - or realistic within the story itself I should say, since we may not want “realistic”-realistic
November 30th, 2007 at 6:14 pmVery interesting post… I like a bit of imagination in a book, see life through pink glasses.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:27 amGreat topic! I would place myself somewhere in the middle between historical accuracy and doing what’s necessary for an entertaining, appealing romance. I research every tiny detail of my stories but I also take literary license when I feel that is best for my story. (My heroes always smell nice, bathe alot and have good teeth. I think we all agree that’s important. LOL
)
In many ways, a historical romance is a historical “fantasy.” I’m probably talking about an earlier time period than some of you since I write mostly about the early 1600s, mostly Scotland. The reality is nothing to fantasize about with all the people who didn’t bathe for a year (imagine the body odor in a city) or the streets full of sewage, or rotting corpses hanging on bridges or wherever they displayed the executed in public. (Has anyone seen the movie Perfume?) Though the stench and yuckiness is accurate, it isn’t something I want to read about nor write about.
If my early 1600s dialogue were absolutely accurate for the times, the average reader would have a hard time understanding it. The pacing would slow down. I don’t personally enjoy reading Shakespeare and I’m not a literary or history scholar. I love an entertaining romance story that has all the flavor of the times, which is as accurate as possible, but that is easy to read quickly. And most of all, the romance is the focus. For medieval stories, this would be even more true. In reality, medieval times were anything but a fairy tale. The accurate language would be harder to understand, etc. So, I think a balance is necessary.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:37 pm