We don’t need stupid characters
by Oline H. Cogdill
July 22nd, 2009A recent post on DorothyL got me thinking about what we will accept in mysteries and where we draw the line.
It’s pretty much agreed that mystery readers will accept just about anything in the novels. That we will allow those wonderful writers to take us to places we might never go to and – often – never want to go. Other cultures, other viewpoints and even the minds of the worst villains are all part of what we not only accept but sometimes seek out.
We don’t want to live with a horrible person, but a well written mystery can help us understand where evil comes from and, ultimately, help us understand each other and ourselves.
OK, so this blog is getting all philosophical on me, but bear with me.
What most of use won’t accept in mysteries is cruelty to animals. I am with you on that. Though it does seem a bit odd that we will read the vilest violence on people but just don’t let it be directed to animal. Even we mystery readers have a limit for tolerance.
Another thing we won’t accept – and this was the recent talk on DorothyL – is stupid characters.
And I think that is because mystery readers are intelligent, insightful and will not accept anything less.
We’ve all dealt with stupid people in our lives – from those we encounter in the public to family, friends and acquaintances. Sometimes we have to put up with stupidity; sometimes we can avoid it.
So why should we put up with it in mysteries?
Stupidity can come in a variety of ways – bigotry, lack of common sense and an inability to see beyond your own thoughts.
So let’s focus on common sense.
A character who lacks common sense and acts, well, stupidly, can ruin a book for me. Especially when that character is supposed to be the lead.
Several years ago, I remember a mystery in which the lead – an intelligent woman, at the top of her career, well respected and all that – goes out to a graveyard in the middle of the night in pouring rain by herself. Of course, a serial killer has been on the prowl and she has a creepy feeling he is watching her.
Could she have not waited until the morning? Or at least gotten someone to come with her? It almost ruined the book for me.
Without naming names, have you encountered stupid characters? And what is your reaction?
I’m not sure if the term carries over to mystery, but in romance, the term is TSTL (Too Stupid to Live), and writing one of those characters is cautioned against.
The job of the author is to give that charcter a compelling reason to do that stupid thing. Martha Powers addressed this last weekend at her “Ramp Up the Suspense” workshop, quoting Johnny Carson’s line: “If they buy the premise, they’ll buy the bit.” (I’ve recapped her workshop on my blog today)
You have to give the character a compelling reason to do what seems stupid. If you’re going to send her into a graveyard, then make sure there’s no alternative. People who do stupid things for good reasons are more sympathetic than the just plain TSTL ones.
I can’t remember the TV show, but it was one of those new cop shows with the ubiquitous skinny heroine cop/CSI/ME-type with stingy blonde hair and nasally voice. (might have been the one with the junk food jones). Anywho, she chases the bad guy into creepy abandoned house and he hides in closet. She runs up the stairs — in stilettos — in pursuit. I think it was raining so her blouse is sticking to her scrawny chest, of course. She draws her big-ass gun, then proceeds to PUT IT DOWN as she examines some blood on floor. Bad guy jumps out and gets her gun. I threw something at TV. Despite the fact she was TOO DUMB TO LIVE (as Terry sez), she was back on next week. I looked up the credits later, thinking this episode was written by guys but it was written by a woman. Geez…
I can live with stupidity up to a point. When the hero or heroine leaves the gun in the cookie jar at home and goes to the abandoned factory at midnight to meet somebody in the first book of a series, I can deal with it.
When it is book five, ten or fifteen in a series and it keeps happening, I become disgusted.
A chaarcetr can be stupid but must learn from stupidity. By book whatever in the seires, I expect at least some character growth and at least a lessening of stupidity. Even bounty hunters should be able to learn from the past.
I can accept a little stupidity in a lead character in a mystery. If the character is not a trained investigator I’ll cut him some slack. Or if there’s some humor or irony involved, I’m willing to go along. But if the story is serious and the sleuth is presented as some kind of expert investigator or “best of the best” then I’ll howl if he does something stupid.
This item falls somewhat into the stupid arena: when the hero is sneaking into the enemy compound and knocks out the guards and walks on. Can’t remember how many times I’ve yelled at the TV “Tie him up!” The unconscious guards never wake up to sound the alarm.
I had to laugh at PJ Parrish’s description of the “To Dumb to Live” heroine’s stiletto’s. Many female characters (or more likely their creators) have this type of wardrobe issue. My favorite was a scene in CSI that showed cop Catherine Willows (Marg Helgenberger) wearing a tank top while rummaging through a Dumpster looking for evidence. Down the alley behind her are at least three men in full hazmat gear doing the same thing…
I tend to include the sheriff and the bed & breakfast owner sleuth who get hit over the head about page 84 in every book in the series. One would think by volume 4 they might take to wearing a helmet, or at least putting one on about page 82.
Kate Stine’s remark about the cop in the tank top and the guys in hazmat suits reminds me of the old science fiction pulp covers with the guy in a full spacesuit and the woman in a bubble helmet and bikini in hard vacuum.