July 18, 2008
Second Bananappeal
Those of us who write know very well how our muses often take us in different directions than we’d planned.
We also know our characters often seem to have minds of their own—and frequently know what would make a better story than we do.
What I’ve found most interesting lately is my attraction to the “Second Bananas” in both my reading and writing.
I noticed it first in my own work.
An incidental female werewolf, unloved and broken-hearted, who became nearly as appealing to me as the heroine of the story.
The captain of the ship who helped rescue the hero and heroine in another piece, “a man who moved with the fluid motion of the sea he embraced,” almost made me want to desert the story I was writing in favor of one for him.
Two supporting characters who worked at the company managed by the protagonists in another novella nearly stole the show. She was earthy and ambitious at any cost, he was geeky, sexually repressed, and afraid of life outside of his lab. They were supposed to take up two or three paragraphs. They wound up owning nearly half the book. I think, in the end, I actually preferred them to my hero and heroine.
And now I’m seeing it in my personal reading. I’m in the middle of a novel with a big, Texas oil-hero and a wispy heroine with a backbone of steel. The sexual tension is high, the people are beautiful, the relationship complex.
But my favorite parts so far have been the shy, homely sister of the hero becoming involved with a rough-edged, homespun ex-con.
I know we love our flawed little second bananas—but do you sometimes discover that they’re more attractive than the dashing Master Race main characters?
Do you find them taking over the stories you read and write?
Do you know why?
I think it’s because w/the hero/heroine we, to a degree, write to trope based on reader expectations, and those restrictions don’t apply to secondary characters.
it’s the box that irritates you that can sometime make the secondary characters more interesting. The Hero and Heroine have to be “perfect, but flawed”. In essence worhty of love. The Ex-Con in the tradtional reading world would have to either: Been convicted of a crime he really didn’t commit. Or it had to be for a noble cause. Gag.
Plus, I think authors give free reign to those second bananas. I know I did in See Megan Run. Heck, in my WIP the secondary character is the sound of reason. I sometimes prefer her than I do the heroine who is off the wall.
Go figure.
I think Bernita has hit the nail on the head. Also, in many cases the second gets to really shine during the moments they show up, they don’t suffer from the queiter/slower moments that perhaps the main protags have. And you might not have dug into their backgrounds GMC as deeply as the H/h, so you discover them in suprising ways as you write them.
>>She was earthy and ambitious at any cost, he was geeky, sexually repressed, and afraid of life outside of his lab.
I woudl LOVE to see you write a short about those two.
And I want to know what you’re reading! LOL
>>The Hero and Heroine have to be “perfect, but flawed”.
I do not agree.
The oldest example I can think of was ‘Nevada Smith’, the main character’s mentor in Harold Robbins’ The Carpetbaggers. I read over Nevada Smith parts of that book a multitude of times, and cared more about him than I ever did the main character.
I do not agree.
Most days neither do I. Yet what I’ve read lately even if the h/h start off bad the h/h must be redeemed at the end of the book. This perception might be why I’m drawn to books with criminals. They will always be criminals at the end of the day, no matter how much they arc.
…we, to a degree, write to trope based on reader expectations, and those restrictions don’t apply to secondary characters.
I think that’s an excellent point, Bernita.
Makes me wonder if we’re wise to do so with our H/h…
Mel, you’re very good, lol.
The crime WAS for a noble reason.
I sometimes prefer her than I do the heroine who is off the wall.
So she’s the one who grounds the story. No wonder you’d like her.
…so you discover them in suprising ways as you write them.
Yes!
I’m more and more surprised by them. Bloody characters are taking over.
I woudl LOVE to see you write a short about those two.
I LOVE a geeky guy in wire-framed spectacles. Sigh…
I read over Nevada Smith parts of that book a multitude of times, and cared more about him than I ever did the main character.
Ahhh.
But do you know WHY, Bernard?
Yet what I’ve read lately even if the h/h start off bad the h/h must be redeemed at the end of the book. This perception might be why I’m drawn to books with criminals.
So it’s not so much their “perfection”, but the idea that they’re already sort of “pre-formed”, disposed to fit into a certain mold (or expectations, or “the box”) that makes them less appealing than the secondary characters?
This is one of those weeks when I have NO CLUE! I know the H/H need to have some parameters that “make sense” to the reader but as writes, or at least me, I get in over-think mode and I almost can’t remember how to write it right. It takes a bit to clear my head and then I can.
However… I have one particular Second banana that I *heart* a LOT! He was over the top, did his own thing not caring what people think…what I wish I could be at times. I think they tend to be more “fun” for lack of a better word. Like Miss B said, they can go against all the rules!
I liken it to the grass being greener on the other side. It happens all the time. We become somewhat bored with the main stars from time to time, so we start eyeing the mysterious other, thinking of all the possibilities.
Ahhh.
But do you know WHY, Bernard?
I sure do. ‘Nevada’ was a bad ass, honorable guy, who kept his word. The main character was not.
Like Miss B said, they can go against all the rules!
Agree.
And I keep wondering if we should take that approach to our MAIN characters.
We become somewhat bored with the main stars from time to time, so we start eyeing the mysterious other…
I thought of that as a possibility, Tanya.
Problem is, they often ARE more interesting…
I sure do. ‘Nevada’ was a bad ass, honorable guy, who kept his word. The main character was not.
I can definitely see your point.
So it’s not so much their “perfection”, but the idea that they’re already sort of “pre-formed”, disposed to fit into a certain mold (or expectations, or “the box”) that makes them less appealing than the secondary characters?
Yes and no. I think I just like characters with more bite. The ones that are more complex. Where you can’t decide right from the beginning if they are good or bad, because I do believe that is how we create certain expectations. As a society we have ideas on who is deserving. We may not mean to do this, but it’s one of those ingrained qualities. So, those characters where I have to physically put the “deserving” ideas aside make for more interactive and an engaging read.
To sum up: My thought is just likeable doesn’t always equal interesting.
>>I LOVE a geeky guy in wire-framed spectacles. Sigh
*drool* me too. especially ones with handcuffs
>>And I keep wondering if we should take that approach to our MAIN characters.
I think we should