I despise weak characters. Nothing bothers me more than characters that just don't contribute. They ought to either die or get out of the way. I don't mean characters that start off weak and later become stronger, those are fine. I dislike the ones that don't bother. And I know this doesn't pertain necessarily to characters, more of a mechanic. Love triangles. I cannot stand them.
I hate the drama that comes along with it. The floundering, the angst, ugh. And three pages in I'm screaming at the book "Make up your damn mind!"
Me too, I never write them and I find them annoying in fiction. And for the same reason actually. .. Just make up your damn mind!
A main character who is so good and so pure, yet she keeps doing nasty stuff, but assumes people will understand. *coughElenacough* I have nothing against selfish, bitchy main characters. I'm writing one myself, and she admits she's a bad person. The problem, for me, is when said character pretends to be the epitome of goodness. Either own up to being a sucky person or stop being like that!
I've found myself in the position of deliberately creating a primary protagonist who becomes potentially quite unlikable as her story arc goes on. Like early on the reader can sympathize with her, root for her etc.. Later she sinks pretty far into an "ends justify the means" mentality and does some things which are quite ghastly for reasons which, to her, serve the "greater good". It's open for debate how readers will react to this when it's all said and done. Luckily I have a day job and am not trying to do this professionally.
I hate the, "Obnoxious person who is somehow oblivious to the situation everyone else is aware of, and is about to pay for it" character. You know the one, they're often seen yelling at a group of kids in school. Every time the kids (usually the funny one) try to warn her (shes a teacher now, english? No, math!) about the dragon slithering in the background, she shouts them down. That is, until the beast eats her. I get what the characters for, its revenge on the jerks in life who yell their opinion without ever listening to anyone else's. Doesn't make it any less annoying. Especially if there are like 4 'jump scares' before she actually gets eaten.
I have a theory (not entirely proven) that if a person can't make up their mind which of two people they 'love' ...then the answer is probably 'neither.' It's different if the dilemma is about what they should or shouldn't do about the situation, but once they realise that 'love' is the subject, they should never be unsure which one they love.
I'd be more inclined to say the answer could very well be "both". There are socio-cultural reasons for our tendency toward monogamy, but I'm not sure there are any innate reasons. We accept that we can feel all OTHER kinds of love for more than one person at once - parents love all their children, etc. I don't see why the same can't apply to romantic love. In which case I guess I'm bugged by the character (or trope, really, but to fit this thread, I'll say character) who thinks s/he HAS to pick one partner, and who, having made his/her choice, feels no apparent regret or loss over the other one.
I'm fine with it being a tough decision. If i had to choose between being able to eat chocolate or vanilla ice cream for the rest of my life, it'd take me a minute. My problem is when the conflict is drug out over a whole book, or trilogy, or four movies that SHOULD HAVE BEEN THREE HUNGER GAMES! I also hate whatever 'character' thought up of pumping as many movies out of books as possible.
Oh, you're right. A person can certainly love more than one person. And heartlessly dumping an undeserving character without regret would make me dislike the dumper, for sure. I'm presuming we're talking 'mate' here, not just friends, though. And I guess I was saying, if you're talking 'mate' and you can't make up your mind between two available mates (and you live in a monogamous culture where you have a choice) ...there is always the possibility that neither one is 'right' for you. You're not obliged to pick one, just because there are two. No more than you are obliged to accept one just because there only IS one. I think that's why love triangles bother me in books. As a reader/onlooker I either feel right away which one is 'right' —and get impatient with petal-pulling from the main character—or I suspect neither of them are 'right.' If that's the case, I really don't care how it turns out because I don't feel the attraction for either coupling. Unless, of course, a third party comes along that nobody expected.... The only kind of love triangle I find absorbing is the kind where the main character knows fine and well which of the 'two' he or she loves, but there is an impediment to being together with that person. (Anna Karenina is a good example.) One can be married, or there can be an unsuitability issue (age, family issues, etc) or something like this. In other words, the character has to choose to do the socially or morally acceptable thing and maybe spend their life without the person they love, or overcome the obstacles between them. That's a believable conflict, for me anyway. Just pulling petals off a daisy? No.
I came across a new one to add to my gallery when I was checking out a certain romance author's novel via the Amazon "Look Inside" facility: The "heroine" in her mid to late 20s who's still operating solely through her hormones as if she were still going through puberty. Sure, yeah, the sight of the hero can turn you on, but by the time you're 27 you should be able at least to think of him without melting into a puddle. And the mere sight of his broad shoulders shouldn't have you tripping over your feet and spouting drivel when he speaks to you. Good gosh, woman, I get that he was your high school crush and you haven't seen him for awhile, but haven't you grown up any since then? The author must have thought all this was cute. I did not.
Ah yes, the old melting heart shtick. I've never understood that one. I mean sure, I've done stupid things round women, but I can at least compose myself before I do the boneheaded thing I was about to do. End of the story, if a character is an adult, they ought to act like it.
Heart, schmart. All this was strictly below the waist. But LOL, yes. The scary thing is that the author was a presenter at a writers' conference I didn't get to go to, and I was looking up her work to see what I was missing by not attending her seminar. (The book in question is, according to an interview, one of her favorites.) I won't say I didn't miss much. Because, odd as it sounds, I've learned a lot from the advice of writers whose work I find I don't care for. "Do as I say, and not as I do"?
Hate as in characters I would never include in my writing, or hate as in 'love to hate'? If for the former: Whiny, useless and pointlessly included characters. If the latter: The snobbish, better-than-you characters who get shut down.
Another one that makes me very, very suspicious: The so-called hero who acts like a total jerk all through the story, treating the heroine like something the cat dragged in, until the last chapter when he reveals that it was All An Act; he actually fell for her at first sight and Didn't Want Her to Know (why? they're both single, ya know?), and now that all that is cleared up, Let's Get Married Right Away. Oh, yeah. And the heroine who believes this crap and marries him, just because the guy in question is hunky and has all his hair. I do not believe a word of it!
Why can't the answer be both? Not all cultures are monogamous. Imagine the conflict that would come from a polyamorous union trying to fit into a monogamous culture. I know of two polyamorous situations, both of which keep their personal lives hidden deep underground. Everyone accepts that a man can have multiple wives, or the notion that any man over 30 is entitled to a mistress. But what about the woman with two husbands? It's not culturally acceptable, yet such situations exist. Now there's some conflict for you. Imagine the blow back if a predominantly Mormon community discovers that one of their highly respected families is considering bringing another into the marital bed, but it's not a sister bride, it's a brother husband.
Wait, it's accepted to have a mistress? Isn't that cheating? I mean, if you are polyamorous, sure, but I don't think most people are. And the term mistress often implies cheating.
It's a cultural thing, Love. Once upon a time the "Royal Mistress" was an actual position that needed filled in a Monarch's household. There is a book out on sex and monarchy that is quite interesting. Also, many men, regardless of culture feel entitled to a mistress once their wives reach "a certain age." In divorce friendly societies, they may swap out the older wife for a younger one, (i.e. Donald Trump), but in more conservative areas that frown on divorce and see is as a social sin, they keep the wife and take a mistress. Many wives actually seem to prefer this because they are raised to believe sex is sinful and now the burden of having sex is passed on to someone else. (My grandmother is one such frigid woman.)
Oh, that would be a fantastic plot, actually. A story about somebody who loves two people equally, and decides to keep both, but society (whatever that society is in your story) doesn't approve? ...that's a superb plot. No argument from me. That kind of plot centers around a person choosing whether to conform to, or to flaunt society. It's not making a choice between lovers—if both husbands agree to the arrangement with equal enthusiasm. But your conflict isn't what I would call a 'love triangle' in literary terms. A love triangle, in book terms, is usually when a main character can't make up his or her mind which of two people he or she actually loves. This has nothing to do with religious, sexual or marital conventions. It's the hero/heroine discovering his or her 'true feelings.' In this kind of story, the rejected one will need to move on. @Shattered Shields said earlier in the thread that they hate this device in stories because of all the swithering back and forth, and I was agreeing with that—and adding the extra thought that maybe the character can't make up his or her mind because NEITHER is the right choice. Constant indecision is annoying if it's stunningly obvious to the reader, early on, what the 'true feelings' actually are. If the person struggles to decide which of two lovers to stay with because of other factors, such as a responsiblity for children, or family or societal pressure, or finances, or some other life complication, that's another kind of plot. I would not call that a 'love triangle.' (Think The Bridges of Madison County. Great example. The main character had no doubt about her feelings. The story was whether she would put her own happiness above that of her family.) You might have missed it, but in a slightly later post, I did mention this plot device belongs to a monogamous culture:
