Writing Characters with Depression

A character in Gods on the Mountain has at least three episodes of great depression described in the book, one of which is in a flashback. These happen after three separate incidents, including the death of a friend. When I say he gets depressed, I mean he gets depressed hard. He shuts down. He's unable to do anything. He wallows in misery. All self-confidence is zapped out of him. He sees his talents and his worth as being lower than dirt. Even though he's nominally one of the heroes, he doesn't see himself as a hero, and he doesn't bear any of the cockiness so prevalent in many fantasy or science fiction heroes.

I based this largely off of my own experiences with severe depression.

Let me clarify that I'm not describing bipolar disorder, which is something else entirely, and which I've been told I don't have. There are other (non-genetic) reasons for my habit of depression which I can't go into here without turning it into a whiny sympathy-fishing-fest. Suffice to say, there are factors from my history that lead me to get the way I often do, but with the help of my selfless wife and supportive friends, I've been steadily recovering and trying to manage it. However, it's something still very real that I struggle with every now and then.

Is there anybody out there...?

When I try to articulate how I feel in such depressive episodes, I find it's a difficult condition to try to explain for others, because it's more than being "bummed out." Telling a person to "man up" in such a situation won't work. What's more, it's not possible to simply come out and say, "Yeah, I'm feeling down, and here's why." It's like your body just shuts down, mentally and emotionally. Whatever accomplishments you've made that day feel like nothing. It's like writing a 50,000 WIP in one day, only to have your computer crash with nothing saved - everything you've done, according to your depressed mentality, suddenly has no meaning. That's what it feels like.

I had one such episode this week, when during the evening I got into an argument with a friend. Without giving too much away, I said something poorly worded, and as a result they felt insulted and shut down the conversation. I felt bad because my intent wasn't to be mean or insult anyone, especially a friend. I didn't have anything else to say to the person, because my mind literally locked up, and I didn't know what to say. The guilt became stronger. I realized I couldn't get any sleep. I think I only got about two hours of sleep that night. Worst yet, I was struggling with myself on the inside, saying, "Just apologize," or, "Stand up for yourself." Part of me said, "This is stupid. You have bigger things to worry about. Move on with life." Even these internal voices fell on deaf ears. I'm writing all this as just as an example of how difficult depression can be for those who struggle with it.

When I wrote the depression scenes with the character mentioned before, I didn't just leave him depressed. There's a way out. Things happen that lift his spirits. I tried to show that there are ways out of depression, and we don't need to see it as the end. It's not the same for everyone, and for many it's harder than others. My hope is that it's carried across well in the story itself.

Expanding a Character's Role: Or, How My Wife Influences My Writing

In Gods on the Mountain, there's a character known as Celia, who works as a tavern girl in the desolate city of Dubris. Without giving too much away, she eventually becomes the love muse, and romantic interest, of another character. Originally, she had a much more minor role. In fact, I don't think I even named her. She was simply going to be a brief source of temptation for the protagonist to want to quit the mission and stay in the city, only to continue on out of a sense of duty.

Then I started reading the incomplete first draft to my wife. You must understand that my wife is a hopeless romantic, and believes if a character deserves true love, they should receive it. In this situation, she started wanting me to write that Celia and the protagonist ended up together. I fought with the idea in my head, trying to think if I could make it work, or if it would be worth the long-term character development. Eventually, I decided to go forward with it, and started writing with this in mind. By the end, Celia became a character who will more than likely pop up in any sequels.

Herein lies the importance of beta readers, and why they can be helpful in catching things you don't. Two of my beta readers complained that the relationship between Celia and the protagonist, after they first part ways, felt disjointed. One said that it felt like they were separated lovers, when their first contact was awkward and brief. I had to laugh at this, because Celia was, after all, written as a character who wasn't supposed to be relevant to the story, hence the disjointed feeling. I went back and rewrote the scene between her and the protagonist, making it longer, more fleshed out, and with a more developed bond between them. I sent the rewritten scenes to the beta readers, and they both agreed it was an improvement.

This entire episode was an example of how an author should be flexible with how he sees characters progressing in a story, and whether or not there's room for change. It's also a fine example of why you should reread and review your work if you make any serious changes to the story.

"Gods on the Mountain" Now Available!

As those who follow me on Twitter know, my new fantasy book, "Gods on the Mountain", was released yesterday on print and Kindle, and is available for purchase.

In the mountains of Calambria, the dwarf tribes have disappeared, and merchants have been expelled. Two are assigned to investigate this mystery: Edmund, a human and Magi, gifted with the ability to utilize the elements; and Diane, an elf and Dagger Maiden, who excels in close combat. As they attempt to uncover what has happened, they unearth betrayal and secrets not only from outside the continent, but from within as well. Soon they will discover a plot with dangers that go well beyond the mountains.

Here is the link to the print version.

Here is the link to the Kindle version.

First Experience: Beta Readers

When I first entered the world of indie publishing, I heard about these strange things called beta readers. "Who are these strange people called beta readers?" I asked myself.

No no no...beta.

What I learned was that, before publishing your book, you gave copies of it to either friends or volunteers to read and give you feedback on what they liked or didn't like. It's similar to the practice of film companies using test audiences to see what they think of a film thus far. There are various opinions regarding what point in the publishing process you should use beta readers, but the one I've read that makes the most sense is when you have the book edited and in a format you believe would be publish-worthy. At that point, you send it to your beta readers to see what other people would think about your work.

I'll admit I probably did it in the most awkward manner. I basically just put it out on Twitter that I was looking for beta readers for "Gods on the Mountain", and advertised it like that for a while. Eventually, I got three people volunteering for the job. I sent them PDF copies of the book, and waited to see what would happen.

Overall, the experience was amazing. My beta readers were open and honest, telling me what parts they loved and what parts they hated. I came to really treasure their feedback because there was one part of the book that at least two of them said didn't work at all, and didn't come across as believable. I went and edited that part, and sent them the edits, and they all affirmed that it was much better. They likewise pointed out any grammar or spelling errors, including one embarrassing mistake where I completely left out the verb!

I definitely saw the value in beta readers from this. I felt like my book was being even more refined, and was beginning to come together as a fully functioning novel. I was happy to have people who could point out problems in the storyline, rather than simply throw my book out into the market and get it from reviewers who may not like the book as much as they could. The experience likewise permitted me to grow and learn to take constructive criticism with a thick skull, and take from others what could help my writing, rather than getting defensive or becoming far too attached to the story.

To any indie authors out there, I would definitely suggest looking up beta readers, or finding those who would function as beta readers for you. It is definitely worth it.

"Gods on the Mountain" Sample Chapter

The following is Chapter 1 from my upcoming fantasy novel Gods on the Mountain, set to be released on April 29, 2015.

Enjoy!

Rules of Magic in Calambria

Last month, I came across an article by Eve Jacob on how to write magical powers. It was a good read that basically emphasized having a system, limitations, rules that can be understood and broken, etc. I've had a lot of questions from the beta-readers for my upcoming book Gods on the Mountain, regarding specifically the use of magic. Because of this, I thought I would take a moment to explain what role magic plays in the book, and within Calambria (the continent on which my book takes place) at large.

The word "magic" is rarely used in regards to special powers, and when it is, it is almost treated by other characters as a kind of slur. The powers themselves involve a manipulation and utilization of natural elements found within the world. This can include the dirt in the ground, or the flame from a fire, but it can also include clothing or metal armor. This is done by either manipulating the elements from their current state, or channeling those elements through your body. The important part here is that elements cannot be created ex nihilo from the caster themselves - it must already exist. Hence, an adapt user of "magic" must be ready to use whatever is available to them at that moment.

Two things should be kept in mind in regards to this: skill level and physical endurance. A magic user cannot simply do whatever he wants, but rather must harness and focus his skill, in the same manner that a juggler needs to practice to keep up (and advance) his abilities. Likewise, a weak magic user is not going to have enough endurance for what he needs to do, whereas a stronger magic user will be able to cast for long periods of time (and as a result, most magic users tend to be physically fit).

One final, and very important, factor to consider is that, in Calambria, magic and spirituality are connected. Magic is not earned through bloodline, nor through simple training (though training to lower levels is possible); rather, the Almighty (Calambria's monotheistic deity) grants "magic" to whom he wills. It is not inherited, but gifted. The major school of magic in the book, the Order of Magi, recruits by seeking out those who have shown, either at an early age or as a young adult, those who exhibit these powers. Of course, what a person chooses to do with these powers is up to them, and can ostracize them from the magic-using community at large, or grant them greater renown. Those outside the Magi who have exhibited powers for good tend to be seen as saints or holy people, while those who exhibited them for evil were seen as morally corrupt. All of this plays an important factor in the main plot for Gods on the Mountain.

Book Trailer: Gods on the Mountain

I know I had previously posted the book teaser, but here now is the book trailer for my upcoming fantasy novel, Gods on the Mountain.


Artwork used in the trailer comes from the book cover itself, which was done by the wonderful artist Mari. Check out her Twitter account and her website! She's a marvelously talented artist!

Social Media and Author Maturity

Recently on Twitter, I saw an author tweet about people they had blocked, mostly because of a disagreement over a subject. Out of a strange curiosity, I reviewed their twitter feed, and discovered that it was mostly them boasting about blocking people left and right, and for a variety of subjects. What took me aback by all this was not only did this person seem mean spirited towards the people they had blocked (referring to them by an ad hominem or a cruel name), but their tweets suggested that they had blocked quite a large number of people. They likewise took a "woe is me" attitude, as if the opinions of these people, and the action of having to block them, made this person a martyr on par with Saint Sebastian or Joan of Arc.

At first, I wasn't quite sure how to take all this; after some thinking, I felt inspired to write a blog post on this kind of attitude.

Of course, as one must always do on the internet when you first begin making suggestions or talking about a subject, let me make a few things clear: I understand this is the internet, and people are going to do what they want to do, and I can't control anyone, etc., etc., etc. Don't take this post as a declaration ex cathedra that must be obeyed; look at it as an author speaking to other authors and offering advice - mainly in why this attitude is a wrong one to take.

First, this kind of attitude is unnecessary social media drama. Seriously, I loathe Facebook because this sort of thing permeates it: people blowing their gasket at the first sign of contrary thought, then blocking people left and right over every tiny little thing. Blocking people because you disagree with them (even with a mute or unfollow function readily available) is just being a drama llama - especially if you proceed to go around bragging about it like you are some poor martyr who was compelled to do so.

That's not to say there's never a reason to block someone. Generally, I work by these rules in regards to blocking:

1. If you post pornography or stuff in general that would embarrass me to see on my feed, were my wife to be sitting next to me.
2. If your account is spam or doesn't serve any purpose that might produce some form of interaction.
3. If you keep doing the "follow for automatic follow-back" thing several times (at that point, you're being obnoxious).
4. If you're a jerk or generally act disrespectful to myself or to friends/family, and to the point that friendly interaction is no longer possible.
5. If you're the Game of War Twitter account.

However, if someone's opinion or personal action, especially one that most people would find inconsequential (eg., celebrating Valentine's Day), upsets you so much that you have to block them...then you're demonstrating a great level of immaturity. Welcome to the real world: there are going to be people who disagree with you. You're going to have to coexist with people who disagree with you. And it's those people's absolute right to post their views on their account, provided they aren't going to an extreme in doing so. Unless they're directly attacking you, don't go blocking them or crying on social media about how you were somehow forced to block others, when all you could have done was count to ten and moved on with life.

There are people I regularly interact with on Twitter who I disagree with politically, religiously, etc., and while I'm not saying that I'm alright with every single thing they tweet or share, I try my best not to have a knee jerk reaction towards it. I try to avoid feeling the need to purge my feed of contrary opinion. Even if I choose to disagree openly, I try to do so in a respectful manner, and with consideration for their viewpoint. That's not to say I'm perfect - I could definitely go back in time and rebuke myself with this post. I've had to mature with online interaction, let alone real life interaction. One thing I've tried to live by is you choose your battles, and you choose what hill you want to die on. What's more, you have to remember that others outside your little conflict are watching and observing you, which brings me to my next point...

Second, it's a foolish way to act, given you are the persona of your material. That is, you are the face of your product, which is your literary work. One thing that is commonly harped about on most indie guides is that, as an indie author, you are marketing yourself. You don't have a publicist to be your public face, or to deal with the media when you go on a drunken rampage through downtown Los Angeles. As obvious it might sound, you are literally who people perceive you to be. Being an indie author permits people to see you in the "raw." They see you in the way you present yourself.

So, if you act like a ten-year old and flood your feed with stuff that makes fun of people for a variety of reasons, you present yourself  as that sort of person. Of course, your friends and those who agree with you probably aren't going to berate you, but you're going to create this aura around you that others are definitely going to notice. There's a reason why a writer like Norman Boutin is so infamous: because of how he acts, especially towards other people. There's a reason an artist like Tom Preston gets so much flack: because he's constantly playing victim, complaining about things that shouldn't bother him, and blocking anyone who displeases him in the slightest. Yes, you have a right to your opinion, and yes, you too have a right to do with your social media account what you choose to do...but remember what you are, and what you are trying to do. You're not only selling your product; you're selling yourself.

Again, I understand it ultimately boils down to what you want to do with your account, even if that includes blocking everyone who openly celebrates Valentine's Day, or everyone who's a Postmillennial because you're a Historic Premillennial. However, as I said before, remember your ultimate goal, and what you are trying to do. Are you really trying to build a reader base, or are you trying to gather together a team of monomaniacal sympathizers and supporters to come to and pat your back every single time you feel slightly depressed? We all have our bad moments, but if you examine yourself and find that you are repeating this over and over again, it will snowball at some point.

Cover Reveal: Gods on the Mountains

Here is the front cover design for my upcoming fantasy book Gods on the Mountains, with a new release date of April 29.

The artwork itself was done by the awesome Mari, who can be found on her Twitter account, as well as her website. I highly suggest checking out her work; it is simply amazing. It was great working with her, and as any author knows, it's fascinating to see how other people interpret your characters. I'd like to thank her for the great work she did on the cover.

10 Least Favorite Screen Characters

I was tagged by my wife to do my Ten Least Favorite Screen Characters (ie., characters from a TV show or movie). Like my wife, I'm going to provide a brief explanation so that if I offend or shock anyone, I can explain my position. I'll tag people on the Twitter post for this.

There are maybe a handful of spoilers throughout this post, but probably not any huge shockers. Just a fair warning.

Topanga (Boy Meets World)

You know what's funny? I like Boy Meets World. It's a fun series, and there are plenty of good episodes that resonate with me as much as an adult as much as they did when I was a kid. But when I watched it again, I found that I could not stand Topanga. Part of the problem is her self-righteousness and pushiness, which never (in my opinion) gets addressed or rebuked sufficiently. The biggest example of this for me was the one Christmas episode where she stays at the Matthews' home, and starts pushing her family's Christmas traditions on them; then, come the end of the episode, it's Cory who has to apologize?! Excuse me? Are we not going to address Topanga's manipulation of a family to which she was a guest?

It didn't help when it became a trope how, every season, Cory and Topanga would break up, become drama llamas for several episodes, then get back together. It made the series annoying for me. Partly this was because I've had friends in real life who have gone through such relationships, where they break up with someone three or four times before they finally break up for good. Partly this was because it just made the story lines so predictable. I didn't care whether or not they got back together, because I already knew they would. It's kinda like when people die in Dragonball Z; I'm not gonna mourn for them, because I know by the end of the story arch they're just going to be resurrected. More importantly, it seemed like a lot of times the break up was a result of either something Topanga did (though Cory was certainly guilty a few times), or because of some shallow reason Topanga had for said break up. Cory's interests in her at some point seemed more like an obsession, and in my opinion he had broken up with girls in previous episodes for less legitimate reasons than he did with Topanga.

In fact, while re-watching the first few seasons, I started wishing that Cory had ended up with Wendy rather than Topanga. One of the few times as an adult I've been tempted to write a fanfic, really...

Bella Swan (Twilight film series)

Granted, I don't like Bella Swan in the book series either, but unlike Edward (whom Robert Pattinson made somewhat more likable...creepy stalking aside), Bella is even more unlikable in the movies. It goes without saying that Kristen Stewart's acting in those films is some of the worst acting I've ever seen in cinema history period. She makes Steven Seagal look like Ian McKellen. Read this line out loud: "Whoa, what is going on?" Congratulations, you just read it with more depth and feeling than Kristen Stewart did. I seriously believe that every scene with her was done in one take. It didn't help that every other actress in that movie did a good job in their respective roles, causing me to repeatedly think, "Okay, why didn't they get the role of Bella?" Say what you want about Anna Kendrick, I think she could have done a better acting job as Bella than Stewart.

But acting aside, the character is just completely unlikable. She goes through the film with a perpetual "Woe is me, my life sucks" persona. I don't like girls who behave that way in real life...why would I want to spend 2+ hours with a fictional main character like that? Her obsession with Edward is equally as mystifying in the films as it was in the books, and her ability to just go from Edward to Jacob made me doubt if she fully understood what romance really was. She seriously ranks among the top least liked characters in literary or film history for me.

Hermione Granger (Harry Potter film series)

Some of you are probably shocked by this choice, since I've talked on Twitter about being a fan of Harry Potter; I also follow JK Rowling on Twitter, and have used her on this blog as an example of how a good author behaves. So let me tell a little story to explain myself...

I saw the first Harry Potter movie as a late teen, and had never before read the books. I thought it was okay as far as movies go, but I just did not like Hermione as a character. Then my wife introduced me to the books, and as I read them, I discovered something amazing...I liked Hermione. No, I loved her. I found, as a character, I could relate to her in so many ways, and she came across as someone I would have loved to hang out with if I'd ever gone to Hogwarts. She actually became one of my favorite characters in the book series.

In the movies, most of what made her enduring was removed, and the bits that made her human were amplified to the point of annoyance. Her initial unattractiveness (frizzy hair, buck teeth, etc.) was removed, and her studiousness was treated more like snobbery than a character perk. A lot of scenes that made me sympathetic to her were changed so that she was more of an unlikable character. For example, the scene where she throws birds at Ron: in the book, she did it because Ron was a jerk to her; in the movie, she does it because she's a jealous twit.

While Emma Watson can be a good actress, her portrayal of Hermione also hurt my opinion of the character. A lot of her lines are delivered in an unnecessarily dramatic fashion, so that even ordering a salad sounds like she's in some great peril. Her rebuking of other characters, treated in the book as her being the sole voice of reason, is in the films treated more like nagging. By the later films, I found myself absentmindedly saying "Shut up, Hermione" whenever she got upset. It also didn't help that Emma Watson acted with her eyebrows - no, I mean it. Look at her in most of the films, and you'll see she lifts her eyebrows at every other syllable in her line. In some scenes it became so prevalent that I would start counting out loud. Miniscule as this may sound, that part became distracting about her character. If you still don't believe me, start a drinking game over it, and watch any of the movies. I promise you'll be wasted thirty minutes in.

Danny (The Shining, 1997 version)

I'm not going to go into a debate over which version of The Shining is closer to the book, better as a film, etc. I can understand where some of the frustrations Stephen King had with Stanley Kubrick's interpretation, and why he might have wanted to see a different take on the story put to film. People are probably divided on this issue, and I know there are valid arguments on both sides.

That being said, I absolutely hated Danny in the 1997 version of The Shining. That nasal, congested voice of his got grating after about ten minutes. I think they were trying to make him a cute kid that would be enduring, but they overdid it. I started rooting for the hotel, I ain't gonna lie.

Olivia Benson (Law & Order: SVU)

I could probably write a whole blog post on all the problems I have with L&O:SVU, but one of them is the character of Olivia Benson; in a way, she represents everything I find wrong with the series.

For one, she has a self-righteousness, so prevalent in a lot of cop shows today, of "I'm always in the right, even when I'm breaking the law, let alone the US Constitution." Her character will violate police codes of ethics, then get upset if the federal government or another department does the same to SVU. Um, hello? Pot calling the kettle black, much? Is the NYPD's Special Victims Unit somehow immune to checks and balances? There was one episode where she and other officers stalk a suspected rapist - who had been acquitted in court of all charges, mind you - and embarrass him at his workplace and in public until he finally confesses of his crime. Look, I'm not minimizing the crime of rape, and rapists should be brought to justice, but that isn't how our legal system is supposed to operate. If someone is found innocent in the court of law, they're declared innocent unless better evidence comes up. When you reach a level of stalking and public embarrassment, you're breaking the law. Yes, police investigators, try doing that in real life - I'm sure Internal Affairs would be very happy to tell you what happens next after the guy you're bothering sues the city.

For another, her character randomly arrests people at first suspicion, and then is shocked - shocked, I tell you - that she has to let them go because they have nothing more than circumstantial evidence. WHOA! No way! Dang! Curse you, "reasonable doubt"! If only we, I dunno, lived in a dictatorship or police state where the slightest bit of evidence could get you executed! In one episode she had a man convicted of rape, and after the man is found guilty he commits suicide. Then, later on in the same episode, she discovers...oops, he was the wrong guy! Yes, that's right, because of her shoddy police work, she arrested, got convicted, and publicly humiliated the wrong man, and was the catalyst for his suicide. Does she show any remorse? Does she show regret that she drove a man to kill himself due to forever being marked by the law as a suspected sex offender? Nope. Of course not. She's a member of SVU, and they're above all moral and legal rebuke and correction. Remember, they're always in the right, even when they're in the wrong.

Finally, Mariska Hargitay is immensely overrated as an actress. She has the Milla Jovovich problem of having perhaps two facial expressions: slightly concerned, confused look; and smug, cocky look. Granted, once in a while she does a regular smile, but that's when we're lucky. I don't mean to continually focus on the actor behind a character rather than the character themselves, but even if they had chosen someone competent to play Benson, I would still hate the character.

Jimmy Sands (Bats)

Bats is a terrible horror movie overall, and one of the things that makes it so bad is it has perhaps one of the biggest examples of a "token black character" that I have ever seen. It's not that Leon (yes that's his full name) is a terrible actor, it's just that the movie doesn't know what to do with him. His purpose is to literally be a black character and say wise cracks every now and then. What's more, about 99% of his lines are ignored by the other characters. You could literally remove almost every scene of him, or line said by him, and you would lose nothing of substance. If someone wanted to teach a group of film students on what a token black character is, Jimmy would be the archetype.

Big Bird (Sesame Street)

 
Like Boy Meets World, I enjoyed watching Sesame Street as a kid. Most of the characters were fun, and are still enduring as an adult. However, the one character I could not stand, even as a little boy, was Big Bird. Most of the characters were portrayed as simple minded in the sense of being naive or child-like in their thinking, but Big Bird took things too far. Sometimes his stupidity just got aggravating to the point where I was amazed the other characters tolerated his antics. Even to this day, when I watch the Christmas Eve special, Big Bird's concern about how Santa gets down the chimney receives no sympathy for me (given Santa's supposedly done it for like, y'know, the past 2000 years with no problems).

I also watched all the Big Bird films as a kid, and every single one made me, at some point, want to smack Big Bird over the head. The only part I enjoyed was a part of Big Bird in China, where Big Bird goes to a restaurant and asks the host to give him and his dog friend the samples from the front window. The host keeps telling him (in Chinese) that the samples are plastic, and hence not edible (something that a regular person would figure out, even without speaking Chinese), but Big Bird keeps demanding they be served. There's a part in that sequence where the guy turns to the camera and gives a look of utter despair for his situation. I remember seeing that as a kid and thinking, "Yeah, man. I feel your pain. I'm with you."

Nathan Algren (The Last Samurai)

Again, I could probably write a whole post on all the problems I had with The Last Samurai, but a large chunk of it is because of Tom Cruise's character. In fact, Nathan Algren is probably a good examination of all the problems of what I have in the vast majority of Tom Cruise's film characters. Perhaps the biggest problem is that Nathan Algren comes across like a bit of Tom Cruise Mary Sue. Given Cruise's egotism, past accusations of editing films behind a director's back to make himself more of a film's focus, as well as the fact that in every role it just seems like Tom Cruise acting like Tom Cruise but under a different name...that charge could probably be valid.

The Mary Sueness of Nathan Algren shows throughout the film. In just six months of training (part of which was spent going through alcohol withdrawal and recovering from a serious wound) he is suddenly a talented samurai warrior, and is even able to take down ninjas. Yeah, OK, Miyamoto Musashi spent his whole life perfecting the craft of swordsmanship, but Tom Cruise can do it in under six months...yeah sure whatever. Then at the end of the movie, he gets shot umpteen times by a Gatling gun, but then appears later in the film perfectly fine; I half expected him to say to the other characters in a John Cleese-ish voice, "I got better!"

Perhaps the biggest offense of all is the fact that Algren kills off a samurai, then said samurai's wife, upon meeting Algren, says he smells like a pig...and then, in literally the very next scene, she's gazing at him with loving concern as he's getting beaten up. By the end of the film, not only will she be in love with him, but her kids (the children of the man Algren killed) will adore him and laugh and play baseball with him. I'm not saying if someone killed my father I would never learn to forgive him, or treat him with human decency...but I can promise you I won't be treating him like my dad after a few months, let alone will my mother be falling in love with him.

So yes, he becomes a great warrior in a short span of time, and everyone loves/fawns/adores him, even those whose family members he's bumped off...Algren totally is a Tom Cruise Mary Sue. And like every Mary Sue, he's unbelievable and unrelatable as a character.

Belle (Once Upon a Time)

I liked Belle in the original Disney animated film Beauty and the Beast. In the ABC TV show Once Upon a Time...not so much. Whereas Belle in the animated film could be strong and independent while still being a likable character, Belle in the TV show is just annoying. Part of it is her bookworm trait seems more like something attached to her character because it was part of the original canon, rather than an actual part of her personality. She also does some amazingly stupid things, like try to trap a monster in a village full of lots of innocent people. The fact they teamed her up as the love interest of my favorite character, Rumpelstiltskin, didn't help matters.

Have you ever had a character you hated so much in a TV show or movie that, when something bad happens to them, you respond with cheers rather than tears? Belle was one of those characters for me. There's an episode where Captain Hook shoots her. Even though she doesn't die, I literally cheered when that happened! That, along with Rumpelstiltskin going ape-crap and Hook getting hit by a car, led me to tell my wife, "This is the greatest episode ever!"

The Entire Cast of Ghost Writer

OK, I'll admit, I'm cheating here; I'm including an ensemble cast rather than an individual person. However, given these kids acted as a bit of a single-minded organization centered around their literary demiurge, I'm including them as one.

I tried watching Ghost Writer as a kid. I really did. I liked the concept, and I've always been a fan of mysteries. However, these kids are rock stupid. No, I'm not being mean. Really. I'm serious. These kids were dumb. I'm sure in real life all these actors are nice, intelligent people, but the characters they played were dumb as bricks. It took them a week to solve a mystery I think the real police - or any real detective - would have resolved in a day. The biggest example to me was the episode where they came across a container with these words, with some of the letters covered up by dirt:

WA**ING
HAZA*DO**
*UBSTANC*

I remember watching this episode as a kid about the same age as the characters, and immediately thinking, "Oh, it says Warning Hazardous Substance." Did the kids in the show get it right away? Nope. They were like, "Wow, we need to record this and figure it out later!" Then when they get back to their headquarters, they were still stumped as they mulled it over. Finally they were like, "Wow, this is so hard! We need to get out the dictionary!" I was literally yelling at the screen and throwing stuff - one of the few times in my life I've ever done that. I just could not believe anyone would be that incapable of figuring out something that was so freakin' simple. And these kids want to be detectives?

God help us all...