Ten Favorite Fictional Characters

 

Just like real people, we have our favorite fictional people. Characters that resonate with us, just like real people do.

So I thought I’d share with you ten of my favorite fictional characters that are not of my own creation.

Nero Wolfe and Archie Goodwin

I was introduced to Rex Stout’s detective team in the summer of 1980. I fell in love with Wolfe and Archie immediately. There are few books that I reread. The Nero Wolfe and Archie Goodwin mysteries are among those that I do.

My own Justinia and Harry Wright mysteries were inspired by Stout’s characters.

Wolfe and Archie are the timeless dynamic duo.

DCI Tom Barnaby and DS Gavin Troy

Like Wolfe and Goodwin, what makes DCI Tom Barnaby and DS Gavin Troy of Midsomer Murders exceptional is the relationship and repartee between the two.

There are certain pairings that just work. The chemistry between the characters makes us laugh or cry. We see them as real. And that’s how it is with Barnaby and Troy. They are real.

Alan Snyder (TV series Colony)

In my opinion, Alan Snyder is the consummate “bad guy”. And it is not so much that he is bad, as that he is completely and totally focused on promoting Alan Snyder.

He does some good things. He does a lot of bad things. But mostly he does what will benefit himself. Regardless of the outcome for others.

If you haven’t seen Colony, give it a watch. The show only lasted three seasons. But I think it is a great SF alien apocalypse story. Unfortunately, the acting is only so-so, save for Snyder’s character. But the show is totally worth watching. A fabulous story and a great bad guy.

Solomon Kane

Robert E Howard’s 16th and 17th century. Puritan adventurer is a masterful creation.

Kane is a Christian Puritan, but isn’t overly religious. Although he does have his own very strong moral code.

He is a wanderer. He is the consummate knight errant.

In many ways, he combines the action of Conan with the introspection of Kull.

And although Conan is far more popular, I think Solomon Kane is the superior character.

Sherlock Holmes and Dr John Watson

Holmes and Watson. I first met them sometime during my elementary school years. Sixty or more years ago. And I still find the duo interesting enough to make my favorite list.

The inimitable Holmes and the faithful Watson. Their world is a man’s world. So much so, that every modern re-creation infuses women into the story and gives them a place that Holmes and Watson would never have wanted. They were two men very much at ease with each other. Comrades. And in my opinion, that’s what makes the stories work and makes them so memorable.

Rona (Church Mouse)

RH Hale’s Church Mouse is a towering modern gothic novel of incredible power.

It is the story of Rona, who becomes a servant to vampires.

In some ways, Church Mouse is one long character study. But what an exciting and terrifying study it is.

If you haven’t read Church Mouse, you really need to do so. Even if you don’t like vampires, you’ll love Rona.

Church Mouse on Amazon.

Peter (Don’t Dream It’s Over)

Matthew Cormack’s Don’t Dream It’s Over is one of the great novels you’ve probably never heard of. Like Church Mouse above.

Also like Church Mouse, Don’t Dream It’s Over is a very long and fascinating character study.

The world as we know it has come to an end. But Peter survived. From his pen we learn what the new world is like. What hopes and dreams remain. And we learn about Peter himself. He is the unlikely hero. The person all of us would like to be.

Even if you don’t like post-apocalyptic novels, you have to read Don’t Dream It’s Over. It truly is a great novel.

Don’t Dream It’s Over on Amazon.

Doc Bannister and Eudora Durant

Caleb Pirtle’s series The Boomtown Saga is a magnificent historical novel series. It is literary mystery at its finest.

The books revolve around the intertwining stories of con-artist Doc Bannister and widow Eudora Durant.

These are two of the finest characters I’ve ever met. They are real people who come alive when you open the book. So real in fact, that I may have fallen in love with Eudora.

The Boomtown Saga will transport you back in time and introduce you to two of the most intriguing people you will ever meet. Real or otherwise.

The Boomtown Saga on Amazon.

Philip Marlowe

I came to Raymond Chandler’s fiction late in life. And I’m glad I did. I’m able to much better appreciate his picturesque prose, Chandlerisms, and the introspection and observations of PI Philip Marlowe.

In many ways, Marlowe is larger than life. And that is okay. It’s his keen observations about life, his feelings for or against people, that make him such an intriguing character.

Dracula

Almost all contemporary vampires are actually spinoffs of the silent film Nosferatu. And when compared to Stoker’s Dracula are very limited creatures.

Bram Stoker’s vampire is a creature of immense paranormal power.

He can walk about in daylight, although his power is diminished.

He can shapeshift to a variety of creatures and can even assume the shape of fog.

He can change his appearance.

His power of mental telepathy and control of people from afar is phenomenal.

His strength is supernatural.

Dracula is a predator of almost unlimited power and abilities and that makes him a true force to be reckoned with.

He is the perfect bad guy because he’s almost indestructible.

And maybe that’s why modern film, TV, and fiction opt to cast their vampires in the form of Nosferatu instead of Stoker’s Dracula.

Dracula, though, is truly better. He’s much more terrifying.

Those are ten of my favorite fictional characters. Drop your 10 in the comments section below.

Comments are always welcome! And until next time, happy reading!

CW Hawes is a playwright; award-winning poet; and a fictioneer, with a bestselling novel. He’s also an armchair philosopher, political theorist, social commentator, and traveler. He loves a good cup of tea and agrees that everything’s better with pizza.

If you enjoyed this post, please consider buying me a cup of tea. Thanks! PayPal.me/CWHawes 

Justinia Wright Private Investigator Mysteries on Amazon!

Magnolia Bluff Crime Chronicles on Amazon!

The Best Literature

 A couple weeks ago, I was talking with a friend and he mentioned that now that he was retired, he wanted to read the classics. His reason was he wanted to experience the great literature before he died.

I’ve been giving that conversation a think, mostly because I love to read and I too see the Grim Reaper lurking up ahead.

However, when I think about the classics of literature, one word comes to mind: boring. But perhaps that is unfair. After all, what classics are we talking about?

Are we referencing Shakespeare and Milton? The Divine Comedy and Le Morte d’Arthur? War and Peace? Faust? Trollope? Thackeray?

Or are we talking about Riders of the Purple Sage? Dracula? Carmilla? Sherlock Holmes? Poe?

But before we go further, just what is a classic anyway?

Merriam-Webster defines a classic as: “serving as a standard of excellence: of recognized value”. However, that definition begs the questions: Who’s setting the standard? What is the standard they’ve set? And to whom is it of value?

In other words, at the end of the day, classic literature is merely the result of someone’s opinion.

The classics are usually defined as those books generally considered to be great literature. Works by Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Proust, Conrad, and the like. Books that academia has decreed to be great literature. And books that, generally speaking, few people today have read outside of professors making them read them.

And while a bunch of dry and dusty academics are certainly entitled to their opinions, I’m rather fond of Edgar Rice Burroughs’s position:

No fiction is worth reading except for entertainment. If it entertains and is clean, it is good literature, or its kind. If it forms the habit of reading, in people who might not read otherwise, it is the best literature.

Notice Burroughs’s first point: no fiction is worth reading except for entertainment. I like to think Shakespeare would agree with him. After all, Bill wasn’t writing great literature, he was writing to make a buck. And to do so, his plays had to entertain.

The point of any story is entertainment. Sure there may be a moral or lesson. But if the story doesn’t entertain — it’s an essay, not a story.

Burroughs goes on to note that if the story does in fact entertain and is clean, then it can be called good literature. Good literature is any story that entertains the reader and contains positive values.

To my mind, though, Burroughs’s most valuable point is the final sentence: The best literature is that which can form the habit of reading — in those who might not otherwise read anything.

That is a very powerful statement. The best literature is that which can turn non-readers into readers.

Quite honestly, I think reading Tarzan can make a reader out of a non-reader faster than can War and Peace.

For myself, I read fiction to be entertained. I read philosophy if I want great thoughts. And sad to say, I find the so called great classics boring. They don’t, in fact, entertain. Perhaps they did at one time, but for the most part they don’t today. IMO.

Burroughs valued reading over great literature. It was important to him that people read. That they wanted to read, hence his valuing of entertainment over greatness. And his valuing a book that turned a non-reader into a reader, over one that didn’t.

And being a reader, I think Burroughs was right in his valuation.

I’d much rather read a novel by Edgar Rice Burroughs over anything by Thackeray, Dreiser, Tolstoy, or Dickens. They’re boring. Burroughs is exciting.

If you want to read the so called classics, go ahead. As for me, I’ll take the likes of Robert E Howard, Seabury Quinn, H. Rider Haggard, and Cordwainer Smith. Or the works of small press and indie authors such as William Meikle, RH Hale, Richard Schwindt, Andy Graham, Brian Fatah Steele, Caleb Pirtle III, or Crispian Thurlborn. They write the best literature.

Good literature is fiction that entertains. The best literature is that which turns a non-reader into a reader. And for any author to pen a book or story that can so move a non-reader to become a reader, that author has done a great thing to improve all of humanity.

Comments are always welcome! And until next time, happy reading!

Fiction Is People

Fiction is all about people. At least good fiction is. That’s why good fiction stays with us. Why it’s memorable.

Theodore Sturgeon once said, “Good fiction is people. And people are people you know.” Which is probably the point of the old writing adage: write what you know.

It’s all fine and dandy for the writer to show off his or her knowledge about cars, or cooking, or stamp collecting, or orchids — but if those things don’t touch people, so what?

Of late, I’ve been watching Colombo. The lieutenant is a wonderfully drawn character, and certainly went a long way to contribute to the show’s popularity. What I find of even more interest, is that Colombo knows people. He knows what makes them tick. What is likely and unlikely behavior. He’s a shrink masquerading as a police officer in a rumpled raincoat.

Columbo is all about people: their greed, their habits. And how it is that in the end, who they are is what ultimately trips up their attempts to get away with murder.

Good fiction is about people, because without people there is no story. How can a story exist without people? Sure, we can substitute animals for people, but that’s just a camouflage. The story is still about people, and still tells us something about the human condition. It is as Ray Bradbury noted: create your characters (the people), let them do their thing — and there is the story.

There are writers who get hung up on plot. They have to detail each little action in the story. Too often, what gets lost along the way are the people in the story. And the reader knows it. The characters are flat, lifeless paper dolls.

Now some readers don’t care. They devour the story and move on to the next one. Those readers are kind of like junkies just looking for reading fix.

However, I think most readers want a quality reading experience. They want to read about people like themselves, or about people they would like to become, doing wonderful and amazing things.

Tarzan is memorable because he personifies the best in us and is ultimately someone who we’d like to be.

Rex Stout gave us the sedentary eccentric genius, Nero Wolfe, and the wisecracking man of action, Archie Goodwin. I find myself drawn to both of them, but particularly to Wolfe. Why? Because I would like to be the master of that brownstone. Good food, good books, the big globe, beautiful orchids. I’d just sub tea for the beer.

I can’t recall any story that I remember solely because of the plot. I do, though, remember many because of the characters. Bilbo Baggins. Hercule Poirot. Sherlock Holmes. Carnacki. Rona Dean (from RH Hale’s Church Mouse). Tony Price and Chris Allard (from Richard Schwindt’s two mystery series). Carol (from Steve Bargdill’s Banana Sandwich). The Zombie from Ben Willoughby’s The Undude. Tatsuya (from Crispian Thurlborn’s 01134). And more. So many more.

Fiction is all about people. Fiction is us.

Comments are always welcome! And until next time, happy reading!

Keeping a Reading Journal

Readers of this blog know I love to read. Reading is my most enjoyable form of entertainment. Reading brings me pleasure. Reading stimulates my imagination. Reading allows me to meet people and to go places not possible in real life. Reading is the best!

When I retired in January 2015, I decided to keep a list of the books I read. A Reading Journal of sorts. What I discovered in doing so is that I can go back over the lists and relive the memorable books and stories.

In the beginning, the lists were quite simple: just title and author. Over the years, they’ve become a bit more detailed.

What I’ve discovered in keeping my lists is that my reading has increased over the years. And that is definitely good.

In 2015, I read 23 novels. Last year I read 46. All told, I’ve read 184 novels and novellas. Plus 15 short story collections and 125 individual short stories. And this reading is just for pleasure. I’m not doing it because I’m reviewing books and such.

If I do like a book, I’ll write a review and promote the book on Facebook and Twitter. But only for indie or small press authors. The reason being is that they most likely don’t have the resources the publishing mega-corps have. Book reviews are a form of word-of-mouth advertising — and totally free! 

In looking over my lists, I’ve also noticed my reading has become narrower. More and more I find myself turning to mysteries and supernatural horror for my main reading pleasure. I’ve also noticed that I mostly read indie authors and dead authors.

And of those two groups, the dead author list is growing. Mostly because I find too much in the way of politics and political correctness dogma in the writing of far too many contemporary authors. 

As I get older, I have a decreasing tolerance for politics and the stultifying effects of political correctness. It ruins my reading pleasure. I just want a good story. If I want the other stuff, I’ll watch the news. And I no longer watch the news.

Keeping my reading journal focuses me more on reading. I challenge myself to read more each year than I read the year before. This year I want to reach 48 novels/novellas for the year. Two more than I read last year.

Keeping the journal also shows me those delightful reading surprises. Having read 2 westerns, I found I rather liked them — and will probably read more. I also read a weird west novel and short story and liked them as well. This year will probably see more westerns and weird west tales on my reading list.

I encourage you to keep a reading journal. It can be simple, like mine, which is basically just a list, or it can be more detailed, with added notes.

But do keep one. You just might find yourself turning to a book rather than the TV, and other video content.

Comments are always welcome! And until next time, happy reading!

Making Life Pleasant

“I wish… to thank you for your share in making life pleasant for me.” —from a letter, by a reader, to William Wallace Cook

In this little world, so crowded with sorrow and tragedy, what is it worth to have had a share in making life pleasant for a stranger?

—William Wallace Cook, in The Fiction Factory

William Wallace Cook, due to his prolificity, was called “The Man Who Deforested Canada”. Unfortunately for us, and I suppose him, his popularity with the reading public seemingly died when he did in 1933.

A search of the internet yielded no complete bibliography, nor even much of a biography. It seems none of his books are in print. And virtually none have been digitized. I suppose the lack of bibliography is due in part to the many pen names he used, and to a very large portion of his work being published under house names, and a considerable portion of his writing for the 5¢ and10¢ libraries of the day not being credited at all!

Would his present anonymity have bothered Cook? I’m sure I can’t answer that question. However, in his autobiographical The Fiction Factory (published under a pen name!), Cook does not seem to have had an eye to the future. He knew very well he was writing “disposable” fiction. He was not writing the great American novel — he was writing fiction to make a buck to pay the rent and put food on the table. He was an entertainer, much like TV scriptwriters today, and he seemed fine with that.

Then there are the quotes above.

While it’s clear Cook wrote hundreds of novels and stories for money, he was not averse to the writer’s higher calling: making life pleasant for the reader.

If he could, by his typewriter, help to alleviate someone’s sorrow, that was worth more to him then the check he got from the publisher.

I was a prolific poet: writing something over 2000 poems in the space of about 10 years, and seeing several hundred of them in physical and virtual print.

As I’ve said before, there’s no money in poetry. One must seek satisfaction in something other than the almighty dollar. For me, it was hearing from a reader how much one of my poems touched him or her.

Quite honestly, 99% of us will be forgotten by the time our peers and our children are dead. And some of us a lot sooner than that!

What matters most in life is how we touch others. We can be a vehicle of positive energy or one of negative energy.

As a writer, I can crank out books to make a buck — or I can seek to step a bit higher and hopefully make life pleasant for someone. The choice is mine.

I like money. I’d be a liar if I said I wasn’t writing in the hopes of making money. However, at the end of the day, I’d rather touch someone, inspire someone, or make life pleasant for someone than bring home shopping carts full of money.

There’s nothing wrong with money. After all we do need it to live. If suddenly my sales took off, I’d be jumping for joy. And I wouldn’t give the money back. But if no one ever told me one of my books made life pleasant for him or her, I would be very sad. Very sad indeed. For though rich, truly I’d be poor.

Comments are always welcome! And until next time, happy reading!

Getting into Books

A writing guru whose mailing list I’m on is always advising us writers to sell the read, not the book. And that’s ultimately what we are all trying to do. Some of us just do so better than the rest of us.

As a reader, that is, of course, exactly what I want to know: where will I be going, what will I be experiencing, feeling, doing as the result of reading this book. The book I’m considering buying, or the one I bought and am considering reading.

I read fiction primarily for entertainment. If I learn something new along the way, or am given cause to stop and think for a moment — extra kudos go to the writer.

For me, reading is no different than watching TV, or a movie, or playing a video game. Except my imagination is doing the work, instead of someone else’s — and that’s what makes reading, IMO, the better form of entertainment. Even the best form. Reading is active. Videos, in all forms, are passive. And active is good. Stretching those imagination muscles is good. It’s why reading is my favorite form of entertainment.

The other day I was reading Lawrence Block’s introduction to one of the editions of Black Orchids, the ninth Nero Wolfe mystery, by Rex Stout.

Block’s observation as to why we reread the Nero Wolfe mysteries is enlightening, and I think a vital key as to why some of us really get into books. Block wrote:

I know several men and women who are forever rereading the Nero Wolfe canon. …

They do this not for the plots, which are serviceable, nor for the suspense, which is a good deal short of hair-trigger even on first reading. Nor, I shouldn’t think, are they hoping for fresh insight into the human condition. No, those of us who reread Rex Stout do so for the pure joy of spending a few hours in the most congenial household in American letters, and in the always engaging company of Nero Wolfe and Archie Goodwin.

… we know these two, and it is a joy to see them simply being themselves.

What Block wrote describes to a T why I thoroughly enjoy rereading the Nero Wolfe mysteries. Stout wrote in such a way that we are the fly on the wall observing the goings on in that delightful brownstone.

I’d go one step further than Mr Block: any book I read is for the characters. I don’t read for the plot. One reason, I suppose, why I enjoy plotless novels. I also don’t read for the suspense, which I prefer rather low key. And I’m old enough that I probably won’t learn anything new about the human condition.

I read for the characters — pure and simple. The experience of meeting new and interesting people.

If a writer can deliver the goods, characters I can fall in love with, then he has me hook, line, and sinker. I don’t care what else is in, or not in, the book.

Unfortunately, this does not occur all that often. Most writers seem obsessed with the plot. They are too busy counting plot points or beats, writing a detailed outline, following the Hero’s Quest, or whatever other nonsense is being pushed by the writing guru of the moment.

Most writers fail to heed Bradbury’s Dictum: create your characters, let them do their thing, and there’s your story.

Fiction is not about the plot — it’s about the characters. The characters are the ones who pull us into the settings, the time period, the world they inhabit.

I cannot recall one book where I walked away remembering the plot and not the characters. Not a single one.

At base, plots are simple. There are at most just a handful of stories. They are mundane at best. But characters, like people, are complex. Everyone has an outer life and an inner life. Good characters are no different.

Which is more interesting? Tarzan, or the plot of a Tarzan novel? Dirk Pitt, or the plot of a Dirk Pitt novel? Sherlock Holmes, or the plot of a Sherlock Holmes story?

Many of us would like to get into a spaceship and fly off to other worlds. I don’t remember a single plot in Eric Frank Russell’s Men, Martians, and Machines. But I do remember the chess playing octopoid Martians, and the android Jay Score.

Good characters pull us into their world. We become one with them and experience what they experience. This is because the writer can’t give us everything. He can only suggest, and once he does our imaginations take over and do the rest.

This is not the case with even a good movie or TV episode. That’s because we’re passive. Everything is fed to us. We can only react. We are limited to what’s on the screen — which is why special effects are becoming increasingly important.

However, my imagination can do what special effects will never be able to do. My imagination is mine and makes the story live for me. Special effects are general. They target everyone, and in the end that means they shoot for the lowest common denominator. My imagination produces special effects tailored for me.

The secret to a good book lies in the characters. They make any old plot shine. Because it’s the characters who make the plot come alive. Create the characters, let them do their thing — and there is the story.

As a reader, I appreciate the wonderful characters good writers create.

As a writer, I appreciate the readers who fall in love with my characters.

No greater compliment was paid to me then when this review appeared for Trio in Death-Sharp Minor:

Some fictional universes are just places you want to be, and I have been so moved by the world CW Hawes has created for private detective Justinia Wright and her brother, Harry. … I would drop by their house any time, if only for a glass of Madeira.

Tina and Harry’s home will never top that of Nero Wolfe and Archie Goodwin. However, I will be very satisfied if I’m granted second place.

Comments are always welcome! And until next time, happy reading!

Good Villains

What makes the hero (or heroine) stand out, and show us what he (or she) is made of, is the villain. The hero’s nemesis.

Who can forget the Wicked Witch of the West? Or Inspector Javert?

A memorable villain will make a story a success, even more so then a memorable hero. Because the hero must triumph over the villain to win. The bigger the villain, the bigger the triumph.

Of course, an author can shake things up. Take Macbeth, for example. Where a hero becomes his own worst enemy, aided by his lovingly ambitious wife. The same can be said for Stevens in The Remains of the Day, where he is the villain to his own hero.

Generally, though, the villain and the hero are two separate persons. Both want something and are at cross purposes in the achieving.

A good villain can even save what might otherwise be a mediocre production. The TV show Colony, canceled after three seasons (which is a shame), in my opinion, was carried on the back of the villain Alan Snyder. The hero and heroine, Will and Katie Bowman, were lackluster characters (nor was the acting very good for their parts).

What made Colony a success, I think, was the complexity of the character of the bad guy. Alan Snyder was someone you justifiably hated, and yet empathized with because in many ways he is us. He personified the dilemma of survival.

There are many great villains in literature. A few of them are:

Augustus Melmotte in The Way We Live Now by Anthony Trollope

Count Dracula in Dracula by Bram Stoker

Captain Ahab in Moby Dick by Herman Melville

O’Brien in 1984 by George Orwell

Fagin in Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens

Mrs Danvers in Rebecca by Daphne du Maurier

Four of my favorites are:

Mrs Proudie in Barchester Towers by Anthony Trollope

Mrs De Ropp in “Sredni Vashtar” by Saki

She in She by H Rider Haggard

Cthulhu in “The Call of Cthulhu” by HP Lovecraft

Mrs Proudie, like Lady MacBeth, is driven by ambition. However, operating in Victorian society, Mrs Proudie must take a different approach than did Lady MacBeth in achieving the goals of her ambition.

Mrs Proudie whips her milk toast husband, the bishop, up the ladder of clerical success — and she steps on whoever gets in his way. Trollope makes it quite clear early on that it is indeed Mrs Proudie who wears the trousers in the Proudie household. The bishop’s attempt at taking over the reins of his life are quickly quashed.

Mrs Proudie is not a nice person. Unlike Lady MacBeth, she doesn’t have anyone do the dirty work for her, nor is she the least bit repentant.

Mrs De Ropp, for me, represents the evil of duty, and manners, and expectations — all hidden under a façade of do-goodism. Mrs De Ropp does what is proper and expected and in the process is killing Conradin. And she doesn’t seem to care.

She, or She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed, is the ultimate jealous bitch. She kills her lover in a jealous rage, then bathes in the magic fire so she can live forever until her true love is reborn and they can be reunited.

In the meantime, she enslaves a whole nation of African tribal folk to serve her. She takes a woman scorned to a whole new level of meaning.

By the way, her actual name was Ayesha, and she was an Arab. Her lover was Egyptian and she wanted to rule Egypt. Ambitious to boot.

The ultimate question about Cthulhu is this: is he truly evil, or just indifferent?

When it comes to, let’s say ants, are we evil or just indifferent? There are ants on the sidewalk. Do you step on them, or over them? Do you even notice them?

Given Lovecraft’s worldview, I’m inclined to say Cthulhu and his ilk are merely indifferent. On the other hand, an argument can be made for the evil of indifference.

Put yourself in the place of the ant. Now contemplate humans.

Comments are always welcome! And until next time, happy reading!