I wrote a book review/Workshop Wednesday post on Substack a couple weeks ago, and then expanded on it in an Insta reel last week, because why would I keep it simple and consolidate all my musings on one platform? The book was Hell House by Richard Matheson, I do not recommend it, and one of the novel's most egregious sins was its lack of meaningful, tangible characterization. Today, I want to talk about the ways strong characterization can elicit strong reader reactions, and why those are sometimes negative reactions, and why that's almost more of a compliment than a five-star review. (It's not, but it IS satisfying in its own way.)
If you're not watching House of the Dragon on HBO, I can't tell you that you should be watching it, because you might be like my mom (Hi, Mom) and not be down with all the dragons, bloodshed, and backstabbing. If you are watching it, you no doubt have strong opinions about it. Are you Team Black or Team Green? Do you sympathize with Alicent? Or wish Rhaenyra would stop being so damn nice to her? Is Caraxes the best boy? He is. Does Daemon have the kind of swag the OG Thrones characters could only envy from afar? Yes.
My point being, viewers are invested. The analysis, both silly and serious, is insightful and fun. The memes are pitch perfect. And it's not because of the dragons (though I love them, big, fanged horses that they are), or the battles, or the twists, the turns, nor the political intrigue. All of these elements draw us in for one reason and one reason alone: because these characters feel incredibly alive for us.
The last decade or so has seen a sharp decline in general media literacy with regards to fiction. Some readers feel the need to justify things they enjoy or like best through a moral lens. "This is my favorite character, which means she's morally correct, and the opposing character is evil." Fiction is fiction; it's there for enjoyment. It's perfectly acceptable to love an awful gremlin character best, and it isn't a reflection on your own moral code.
Similarly, characters behaving badly in a way that angers a reader isn't a sign of weak writing. Chances are high that if a character pisses you off, it's because that character feels real to you; they're so deftly drawn that you're having a sincere emotional reaction to a character's flaws and mistakes. When someone expresses dismay that one of my characters has done "something stupid," I smile to myself. That means I've created a character who is three-dimensional, and whose actions impact you emotionally, for good or for ill.
The next time you're rating a book, and you want to knock a star or two off your review because a character misbehaved or made a mistake, stop and ask yourself if that character's actions are a sign of a writer's poor writing...or of a writer's very human and effective writing, and if maybe they earned those stars after all. Empty, papier-mache characters inspire empty responses. You can't get angry with someone who isn't real in any way.
Just saying.




















