You see, it gets you thinking, Derek. I am going to rewrite the ending making it more empowering for her.
Elspeth

I wonder if 'care' is the best word? I am sure we all include characters where the word 'care' must be replaced by another emotion... dislike, hate, pity, understanding and so on. Friday comes close to this in the above comments.

However, while we may know our characters intimately I believe that in the portrayal of a character there is a need to concentrate on just a few of that character's aspects. If we reduce these to the minimum, that character becomes more in focus and generally more believable for the reader.

I just wonder what the Editor who made that 'care' statement really meant - if he/she meant anything at all.
Len

To care about a character you have to first have feelings - an element which a lot of agents lack. I wouldn't take their comments to heart. lol.

I agree with the statement that YOU have to care about the character. After all, it is probably a fragment of yourself anyway. I also agree with Dee - you should know a character as well as you would your own child. It helps the narrative and creates an air of authenticity. That is the most important thing - even if you're writing about a half-serpent martian called Cynthia Ra Doo Laaahz.

I also think that the charcater needs to have something that moves the reader - a situation or a condition which the reader can identify with or be repulsed by. It doesn't have to be anything outrageous but can sometimes work brilliantly - for instance, Thomas Covenant in Stephen Donaldsons 'Land' series has leprosy and is an all round git, but one can't help knowing him.

I love my characters. They keep me warm at night. I'm like a bird sitting on eggs.

JB

James, glad to see you’re settling into your new home – good luck there.

And I see you’re another TC fan! I love those books. Lost count of the number of times I’ve read them. I wouldn’t call him a git… he was a normal successful novelist (or is that a contradiction in terms?) until he discovered he had leprosy, his wife left him and the community he lived in began to treat him like a... well... like a leper. But he’s a good example for this thread because, as a character, he is totally consistent across six volumes. Donaldson obviously knew him inside out.

Dee
x

Yes, I suppose git is a bit harsh. I read them years and years ago so my memory isn't that clear. Perhaps I'll dig them up again.

JB

Sorry e.g. I have to disagree.
Harry's hit the nail on the head. We want to know what happens next. Not what he's going to be wearing in the next couple of chapters.

Hello, I'm new and testing the site, but hope you don't mind me adding my two penn'orth. I think this is a really important question. I read a lot of new manuscripts for various reasons, and too often the style and structure works well, but the narrator or main protagonist fails to engage. Without that hook, the best written piece in the world is dead in the water... The keyword, I think, is accessibility. The reader, whether an agent or a friend, has to understand the workings of a character, even when that character is lacking in introspection, the classic example being Elizabeth Bennett in Pride and Prejudice. Martin Amis has the most unattractive heroes imaginable, but they're utterly compelling. What you need to do is locate where the problem lies. It may be in the writing (that you are not conveying enough of what we need to know); in the characterisation (that the outlines are too blurred or bland); or a problem in the structure (that you introduce them in the wrong way or at the wrong point). I'm currently grappling with a similar problem, so I know how it feels... Shyama.

Sorry S you lost me??? Welcome anyway.

Dave

Of course, there's always the option of doping the reader up with drugs, sticking a gun in the back of their head and forcing them to shower you with compliments about your characters.

JB