Avoiding character stereotypes in HF

sportourer1 said:

My novels are set in the 19th Century and I have worked hard to avoid stereotypical characters which I feel blight so much HF especially when written for men. Lead characters are almost always God-fearing imperialists, sexist misogynist wooden automatons.

Click to expand...

Really? Since I've never read anything with a character like that as the lead, there must be a lot of books I've missed.

sportourer1 said:

I have worked hard to avoid stereotypical characters which I feel blight so much HF especially when written for men. Lead characters are almost always God-fearing imperialists, sexist misogynist wooden automatons.

Click to expand...

I haven't really read any of the kind you talk about beyond older "boys own" adventures but I'm sure they are out there. Also, I think one can write a very complicated, three-dimensional, God-fearing, misogynistic imperialist and one can write a sceptic, "free-minded", wooden automaton (I have read several of those, actually). In fact, I think both types can come across as cliché if handled poorly, and both can be wonderful if done well. It's all in the execution, I think.

A well-rounded, complex character requires a much deeper understanding of the period than a place-holder stereotype (obviously), and like you say, it gives more insight into the period (all obvious literary aspects aside). It's something I think all writers of HF should (and hopefully does) aspire to. Actually, as a reader, I rather think all writers should aspire not to write clichés.

I also have a somewhat morally ambiguous character as my MC (I base that on his actual conduct since he's a real person), but I hope to flank him with people who are morally ambiguous in other ways (and some who will be pretty decent in fundamental ways too; a lot more decent than my MC). To me, that's how you make your world complex; you populate it with people who are neither "good" nor "bad", but who are all individuals and as varied in temper and opinions as people are today.

At the same time I'm fully aware I'm writing an adventure/mystery and feel free to work with the conventions of traditional swashbuckling adventures. I mean, I love those. Otherwise, where's the fun?

sportourer1 said:

My novels are set in the 19th Century and I have worked hard to avoid stereotypical characters which I feel blight so much HF especially when written for men. Lead characters are almost always God-fearing imperialists, sexist misogynist wooden automatons.

Not everyone was like that though especially amongst the lower upper-classes and upper working classes who had a bit of education.

My lead character studies science and doubts the existence of God, is fiercely loyal to his friends yet perversely also his King and country, drinks, takes drugs, gambles terribly, has the morals of an alley cat yet believes in live and let live and does not believe England was chosen by God to rule the world.

This would make him unusual but not at all unlikely in the 19th Century. Do you agree that less stereotypical characters make adult HF not only a better read but also give a better insight into the period?

Click to expand...

Ever heard of Charles Darwin, Robert Louis Stevenson and Joseph Conrad? They all lived in the 19th century.

As for breaking stereotypes, just research your time period thoroughly. My last book has a female lead who starts of pretty much as the ideal Roman woman, but I researched a lot about women in the early Christian Church who where Deaconesses (who ministered to secret Christians when it was too dangerous for men) and where some of the early church's greatest financial supports (see St Paul.) My FMC has a bit of Antigone in her.

Read lots of biographies, social histories, letters, and diaries to gain a deeper perspective of how people lived and thought in your chosen setting.

Also, not only are you writing historical fiction for a modern audience, but you're writing your character. Modern audiences come to HF to understand the past through believable characters who seek a particular goal or overcome a particular conflict. If racism, sexism, and imperialism has nothing to do with your plot and characterization, there's no need to worry about it.

sportourer1 said:

My novels are set in the 19th Century and I have worked hard to avoid stereotypical characters which I feel blight so much HF especially when written for men. Lead characters are almost always God-fearing imperialists, sexist misogynist wooden automatons.

Click to expand...

People in the O'Brian novels are pretty much all God-fearing and sexist, but they are far from being automatons.
Of course that's the early 19th century, before people started working really hard at whatever it was that made so many people so painfully Victorian. As you can see, I don't know much about it since I write about the 1790s mostly these days.

sportourer1 said:

This would make him unusual but not at all unlikely in the 19th Century. Do you agree that less stereotypical characters make adult HF not only a better read but also give a better insight into the period?

Click to expand...

I am unsure how this would make him unusual. There were alocholics back then, people used drugs, if you weren't fiercely loyal to your friends what good were you? People enjoyed prostitutes. In fact in one city(forgot which one) they had phamplets rating the houses. The only thing that maybe unusual is the God/science thing, but I haven't done enough research on that aspect.

People are people.

I have read books with characters like that, but they were the villains.

sportourer1 said:

My novels are set in the 19th Century and I have worked hard to avoid stereotypical characters which I feel blight so much HF especially when written for men. Lead characters are almost always God-fearing imperialists, sexist misogynist wooden automatons.

Not everyone was like that though especially amongst the lower upper-classes and upper working classes who had a bit of education.

My lead character studies science and doubts the existence of God, is fiercely loyal to his friends yet perversely also his King and country, drinks, takes drugs, gambles terribly, has the morals of an alley cat yet believes in live and let live and does not believe England was chosen by God to rule the world.

This would make him unusual but not at all unlikely in the 19th Century. Do you agree that less stereotypical characters make adult HF not only a better read but also give a better insight into the period?

Click to expand...

I think you don't know what a stereotype is. I also think I wouldn' twant to go anywhere near your lead character. He is not someone I'd care to spend any time with at all, much less a character I'd want as the protagonist.

If anything, he's more of a stereotype than the other characters you mention, and, seriously, why would any reader want to spend time with him?

The characters I dislike are medieval or Victorian women who are headstrong and stubborn, with modern views on things like independence, marriage, and love. I'm sure they existed, but it seems like every historical romance I read these days has this kind of woman for its heroine. It gets annoying!

sportourer1 said:

My man has many of the attributes if that is the correct word, of many of the most admired and written of men of the age, Byron, Shelley and co spring to mind. Very different men of their age than the likes of Wellington and Nelson, though both of course had private lives and vices.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you are getting at either here or in your original post. All four of these men—who essentially belong to the 18th century, not the 19th—have a great deal in common. Certainly none of them could be described as "God-fearing imperialists," a phrase that makes sense only later in the 19th century. And a good case could be made that all of them are "sexist misogynists," a phrase that in no way implies celibacy or even monogamy.

Be careful about making generalizations about the 19th century. It was a period of enormous change and incredible variety. I doubt there were any more "wooden automatons" then than in any other century. And there were probably just as many drunken druggies.

sportourer1 said:

This would make him unusual but not at all unlikely in the 19th Century. Do you agree that less stereotypical characters make adult HF not only a better read but also give a better insight into the period?

Click to expand...

I believe realistic characters always make for a better read, and a better insight into a period.

I really think you're applying a far too modern, and highly inaccurate, view of both real people who lived then, and of protagonists in such books.

I don't think stereotypes are the problem. I think you;re labeling something you don't like as a stereotype simply because you don't like it.

Most of the historicals I read have extremely realistic main characters, and it's realism that matters, not imposing modern views on previous generations.

sportourer1 said:

My novels are set in the 19th Century and I have worked hard to avoid stereotypical characters which I feel blight so much HF especially when written for men. Lead characters are almost always God-fearing imperialists, sexist misogynist wooden automatons.

Not everyone was like that though especially amongst the lower upper-classes and upper working classes who had a bit of education.

My lead character studies science and doubts the existence of God, is fiercely loyal to his friends yet perversely also his King and country, drinks, takes drugs, gambles terribly, has the morals of an alley cat yet believes in live and let live and does not believe England was chosen by God to rule the world.

This would make him unusual but not at all unlikely in the 19th Century. Do you agree that less stereotypical characters make adult HF not only a better read but also give a better insight into the period?

Click to expand...

I'd suggest that this is not an unusual character at all. He sounds like a rake, a stock character introduced in Restoration comedy and which persists into modern literature. There are many, many, many real life examples.

Orianna2000 said:

The characters I dislike are medieval or Victorian women who are headstrong and stubborn, with modern views on things like independence, marriage, and love. I'm sure they existed, but it seems like every historical romance I read these days has this kind of woman for its heroine. It gets annoying!

Click to expand...

Yes, of course they existed, though some did suffer for their ideas. Dr. Mary Walker comes to mind. People thought her clothes were a bit trying. Women could have these views, but one shouldn't expect that they would be welcomed in all social circles or that they were the norm.

So I can see how tiresome it would be to have book after book with the same stereotype.

I think sometimes people forget that strength doesn't have to be in your face. I look at my grandmother who was born in 1921. She wasn't wild nor crazy, yet she had an inner strength that was unshakeable.

Look around you. Do all the people in 2014 think or behave the same way? What makes anyone think it was different in 1914 or 1814 or any year you care to name?

Your lead character sounds like a normal, reasonably interesting person. But I think that your own perception of him might be different than that of your readers. What you just presented to us is a set of characteristics, nothing more. Readers get to see what your character does, and how he does it.

In my opinion, male characters in HF get to be way less stereotypical than female ones overall, but there are stereotypes typical for HF. As someone above said, your guy is a type of a rake, not uncommon for HF and literature in general. Men can have all kinds of stereotypical manly vices* and still be considered interesting and worth investing in. They can gamble, drink, sleep around, swear, not bathe and murder people and they get away with it.

Not so with women. They have to be more or less of strong moral fibre, courageous, pure and proper, and well groomed too. What vices do they have, what weaknesses? Do they drink or take drugs, or steal grocery money, or doubt the existence of God? Lots of women in the past might have had bigger sexual appetite (by which I DO NOT mean having a lot of sexual partners) than was considered acceptable, but if they do, they don't become HF heroines.

So yes, the less stereotypical the better, I think. One important step towards avoiding stereotypes is not to try to create characters that are likable to everyone. The readers who'll love your character, will love him for his uniqueness, not for his universal appeal.

*And how many non-stereotypically-manly men do we have in HF? Soft-spoken, quiet men? Effeminate men? Scheming-behind-the-scenes men? Men as slaves to fashion? Physically weak men? Sensitive men?