I watched an episode from the third series of the US medical seriese 'House' the other day: the one just after he’s recovered from being shot and miraculously has the full use of his damaged leg again. This episode failed spectacularly to live up to the usual good standards of the series, but to me, it served to highlight why the character of Dr House is so fascinating.
Dr House is usually irascible and grumpy because he’s in constant pain from his damaged leg. His grouchy brilliance, as he hobbles around the room on his walking cane, materialises in spite of the pain, or maybe because of it. We excuse all manor of rudeness, drug taking, and other outrageous behaviour because we know the source of his character flaws. This all makes him an interesting character to watch.
However, in this episode the pain is gone and he has the full use of his bad leg. Instead of hobbling round the room grouching to his staff, he is shown attempting to skateboard, while grouching at his staff. Suddenly, House appears rude for the sake of it, grouchy because, well, he’s just not a nice guy, and his brilliance seems wasted.
I found Hugh Laurie’s depiction of Dr House, which usually appears effortless and natural, to be stilted and unconvincing. There was far more Hugh Laurie, the actor, and, even worse, the comic Berty Wooster (from Laurie’ early turn in the UK series Jeaves and Wooster) than the irascible Dr House. I had the feeling even Hugh Laurie wasn’t convinced by his character in this episode.
Why the difference? Cause and effect is the answer. While Dr House is battling to overcome constant pain, he somehow appears heroic. His brilliant medical insights arrive in spite of the pain, or one half suspects, because of the pain. His grouchy nature is forgivable, partly due to his personal battle, but also because his brilliant medical career has been cut short by a disability. True, it is his reaction to his disability that has truncated his career rather than the disability itself (though it is doubtful if he distinguishes between the two), but the net result is still the same, and we feel a certain amount of sympathy or empathy for him. There are some unpalatable truths about human values and behaviour hidden in here, but that is the point: that is what makes Dr House so intriguing a character and so interesting to watch.
House has found a niche, a refuge, where he can display his brilliance without his grouchiness and disability counting against him (one real, one imagined?) There is a cause for the flaws in his character and the audience can appreciate and empathise with the reasons for those flaws. All this gives the character of Dr House interesting depths. His character flaws are believable and excusable (or at least understandable), and there are plenty of character challenges for the writers to exploit which make the supporting characters interesting also.
Now, remove the cause of House’s irascibility and what do you have left? A grouchy, rude, egotistical doctor who has failed to live up to expectations, and squandered his brilliance. Suddenly, we expect more of this character, and all our empathy dissolves. There is no struggle, no battle, no excuses: House is just a thoroughly unpleasant guy. True, this is House’s real character, but all the contradictions are gone and the fun of discovering the real Dr House evaporates, leaving us bored and unfulfilled.
So what’s the lesson for us writers? We all know our main characters need flaws, but the failure of this episode demonstrates very clearly that our character’s flaws need cause and effect to gain the empathy of our readers. The more believable the cause of our character’s flaws the more extreme, and therefore interesting, the flaws can become. This creates challenging, but interesting, and ultimately satisfying, writing.
If your main characters are interestingly flawed and your plot intriguing, it’s hard for even the most mediocre writer not to create an interesting, and enjoyable, story. So this then it the crux of any accomplished writer’s problem: how to create intriguing plots and interesting characters. It is also the difference between catching the eye of an agent/publisher and remaining in the slush pile.
The Key to success: Don’t just think up random character flaws. You need to work on the back story and create the cause and effect which will feature in your story. You also need to think about the supporting characters: how does the central character’s flaws affect them? How do they cope? How do they react? And most importantly for your readers, how do they highlight/challenge these character flaws as the story progresses? Because let’s face it, all the best stories are about conflict between characters.
Some writers like to plan all this out before they start writing, others like to just write a draft of the story then consider all this stuff for the first edit/re-write. However you like to do it, just make sure you don’t skimp on the cause and effects of your central character’s flaws. Otherwise, your story could fail as spectacularly as this episode of House.
Dr House is usually irascible and grumpy because he’s in constant pain from his damaged leg. His grouchy brilliance, as he hobbles around the room on his walking cane, materialises in spite of the pain, or maybe because of it. We excuse all manor of rudeness, drug taking, and other outrageous behaviour because we know the source of his character flaws. This all makes him an interesting character to watch.
However, in this episode the pain is gone and he has the full use of his bad leg. Instead of hobbling round the room grouching to his staff, he is shown attempting to skateboard, while grouching at his staff. Suddenly, House appears rude for the sake of it, grouchy because, well, he’s just not a nice guy, and his brilliance seems wasted.
I found Hugh Laurie’s depiction of Dr House, which usually appears effortless and natural, to be stilted and unconvincing. There was far more Hugh Laurie, the actor, and, even worse, the comic Berty Wooster (from Laurie’ early turn in the UK series Jeaves and Wooster) than the irascible Dr House. I had the feeling even Hugh Laurie wasn’t convinced by his character in this episode.
Why the difference? Cause and effect is the answer. While Dr House is battling to overcome constant pain, he somehow appears heroic. His brilliant medical insights arrive in spite of the pain, or one half suspects, because of the pain. His grouchy nature is forgivable, partly due to his personal battle, but also because his brilliant medical career has been cut short by a disability. True, it is his reaction to his disability that has truncated his career rather than the disability itself (though it is doubtful if he distinguishes between the two), but the net result is still the same, and we feel a certain amount of sympathy or empathy for him. There are some unpalatable truths about human values and behaviour hidden in here, but that is the point: that is what makes Dr House so intriguing a character and so interesting to watch.
House has found a niche, a refuge, where he can display his brilliance without his grouchiness and disability counting against him (one real, one imagined?) There is a cause for the flaws in his character and the audience can appreciate and empathise with the reasons for those flaws. All this gives the character of Dr House interesting depths. His character flaws are believable and excusable (or at least understandable), and there are plenty of character challenges for the writers to exploit which make the supporting characters interesting also.
Now, remove the cause of House’s irascibility and what do you have left? A grouchy, rude, egotistical doctor who has failed to live up to expectations, and squandered his brilliance. Suddenly, we expect more of this character, and all our empathy dissolves. There is no struggle, no battle, no excuses: House is just a thoroughly unpleasant guy. True, this is House’s real character, but all the contradictions are gone and the fun of discovering the real Dr House evaporates, leaving us bored and unfulfilled.
So what’s the lesson for us writers? We all know our main characters need flaws, but the failure of this episode demonstrates very clearly that our character’s flaws need cause and effect to gain the empathy of our readers. The more believable the cause of our character’s flaws the more extreme, and therefore interesting, the flaws can become. This creates challenging, but interesting, and ultimately satisfying, writing.
If your main characters are interestingly flawed and your plot intriguing, it’s hard for even the most mediocre writer not to create an interesting, and enjoyable, story. So this then it the crux of any accomplished writer’s problem: how to create intriguing plots and interesting characters. It is also the difference between catching the eye of an agent/publisher and remaining in the slush pile.
The Key to success: Don’t just think up random character flaws. You need to work on the back story and create the cause and effect which will feature in your story. You also need to think about the supporting characters: how does the central character’s flaws affect them? How do they cope? How do they react? And most importantly for your readers, how do they highlight/challenge these character flaws as the story progresses? Because let’s face it, all the best stories are about conflict between characters.
Some writers like to plan all this out before they start writing, others like to just write a draft of the story then consider all this stuff for the first edit/re-write. However you like to do it, just make sure you don’t skimp on the cause and effects of your central character’s flaws. Otherwise, your story could fail as spectacularly as this episode of House.
