I often wonder what a writer is thinking when their protags do stupid things. Yes, it's human nature to do something stupid, but to continue making the same mistakes over and over is unforgivable, at least to me.
What brought this subject up? One of the books that I picked up at the book sale. The premise sounded great and I was looking forward to the read. After 50 pages, I've set it aside because the heroine is just too stupid to live, let alone save the day at the end of the book.
Our protag is a cop and as she comes into the story she is tired from sitting in court all day and now has to work the night shift. She decides to go outside of her patrol area to take a dip in the lake to wake herself up. On the way there she remembers the reprimand she got for being outside of her area before - having sex with another officer. Stupid #1
On the road she see a person on foot running away from her vehicle and out through the woods. She pulls into a clearing and finds she's stumbled on a murder. Now, knowing there is someone in the woods, she neither secures her car nor looks for that man. And, you guessed it, her car gets stolen while she's wandering around looking for clues. Stupid #2
About a week later, she once again travels out of her patrol area to have sex with her boyfriend and has to rush to another murder scene. This girl just doesn't learn from her mistakes! Stupid #3
Finally at the beginning of Chapter 5 she's going to a bar with a cop she knows isn't trustworthy. This was the beginning of Stupid #4 and the end of the book for me. If she's this stupid how in hell is she ever going to solve the crime? Not only that, she's wondering if she should even be a cop and I want to yell at her, "No, you don't. You're too stupid to be a cop!"
Now, I know that characters are going to do things they shouldn't that will get them into trouble but to play the same stupidity over and over (and in the course of only 50 pages!) is just...stupid. So why does a writer do this? How am I supposed to believe in a character who doesn't learn from her mistakes and doesn't even care if she's in the story?
How about you? What turns you off in a book? And how far will you let the author take you before you throw the book against the wall?
13 comments:
Her vehicle is stolen and she's not on some form of administrative leave pending investigation? Not only is the protagonist stupid, she apparently works for the stupidest police department on Earth.
That's about the size of it, Michael. She's back at work the next day and given a better shift to work. The story is set in rural Texas, do you have different rules down there? :)
I'm still trying to figure out how this got published at all. If I made that kind of mistake in a short story, it would come back so fast, my head would be spinning.
I know writers can stretch reality a bit, but not so much it tears the fabric of the story.
It's set in Texas? Ignore my previous comments. I understand everything, now. We have different rules down here. I'm guessing if you read the story through to the end, she becomes the Chief of Police...
I would've probably continued to the end just to see how more mistakes this person would've made.
On a more serious note, if the plot starts to get so convuluted that I have to keep going backwards in the book (or books if its part of a series) so that I can keep track, then not only does the book go bye-bye, but so does the author as well.
i had to read that book for a client. I don't remember the name but I remembered the skinny dipping as soon as you mentioned it. Moral of the story--people remember stupid.
Life is too short to read bad books.
Fantasy at its best, Michael! :)
Yes, convuluted is another reason, G. I don't always drop an author though. Some authors I enjoy their stand alones but don't like the series and others I prefer one series over another. I give them the benefit of the doubt. Of course, there are those that don't appeal to me at all. :) Everyone's tastes vary.
Yep, Katherine, stupid sticks with you. I read a book where the protag was using a chainsaw to defend himself. He was cutting off arms and that saw never stalled. And only took one pull to start and stay running! I just shook my head. And I don't remember the name of the book either.
Lots of things bother me--and I can tell you one that just did--too many characters. In real life we may have a large circle of friends or huge families but in a book or story, I don't want to keep track of them. I think this book, and a good one too, had in excess of fifty major characters.
Yes, that's another problem, Patti. What's really annoying is when their names are very similar.
I have to watch myself because I'll have two or three characters and their names will all start with the same letter - doh!
Thinking out loud here. Much noir fiction is about people doing self-defeating things. Is there a distinction between self-defeating and stupid? Is is a lack of choices?
Good question, Al! I think in noir, the choices are usually forced on your protag. What I'm talking about is when a character has the choice of not doing something they've already gotten in trouble for and then do it again.
Could just be me, but I've always believed that people learn from their mistakes. When they just keep repeating the same mistake over and over for no good reason - that's just stupid. Maybe because the character was female and a woman was writing it bothered me more.
Of course, with noir, some of those characters really don't learn and are doomed to repeat their mistakes over and over. And yes, that would be self-defeating.
I'll need to give that a bit more thought, Al, but that's just off the top of my head.
Maybe the crucial word in noir is "doomed." Stupidity that is in any way voluntary really drives me nuts.
Al & Sandra,
In noir, the catalyst for a story may be a stupid mistake by the protagonist, but the protagonist's efforts to extricate himself from the situation aren't inherently stupid. Doomed though he may be, he makes his best effort to climb from the hole he's dug for himself.
A stupid character would just keep digging.
That works for me, Michael! Great description.
Post a Comment