The outsider

[Kyriakos]

A general question about literature In my works the main characters always suffer from serious psychological problems, either are hallucinating or have fixed ideas which are paranoid. In your view does this make it harder for the reader to identify with them, and is that really important, or does it work as something that increases interest due to the weirdness factor?

And what would this thread be without an example
Right, in one of my stories the main character is a child that plays the piano. It has a special relationship with music, excells at it, but is troubled by a question. So it decides to write a letter to one of its teachers in the music school. The question is revealed, and it is seemingly quite simple and general: "why does one learn to play music?". However it is also revealed in the end of the story that the child had a very specifric bond with music. In the music school there is a wall with a painting of someone playing the piano, infront of an audience. The boy is terrified of that painting, because it sees something horrible in it. The painting depicts the piano player and three people sitting on the chairs, with a fourth chair being empty. But the boy is of the view that the fourth chair is not a chair, but a beast. It is indeed the same beast that it has seen, after it had managed to play a complicated piece correctly for the first time, and is really of the view that learning music is the way to summon that beast, and this is in reality what its question is about.

Anyway, i hope that you read up to this, and will have the wish to type your view of whether or not a literature of outsiders can be appealing or not.

 

[Mowque]

as a intense reader of fiction and non-fiction...unless it is well written, 'physco' characters are always harder to follow for me. I like literal, pragmatic story-telling. But that is personal taste.

 

[mangxema]

If it isn't weird, I probably won't like it. But I'm weird like that.

 

[jeps]

I thought for a second this thread was about the outsider (aka the stranger/ l'étranger), by albert camus. then i realized it wasn't and was quite happy.

just wondering, is the child undecided gender? you seem to be referring to the child as it, making me wonder a little. seems weird yet intriguing.

 

[Kyriakos]

It is a boy It is just that in greek the term "child" is neutral, so one would call it "it" nomatter its gender..

 

[scherbchen]

I stick with the Whedon mantra... the setting can be anything you want it to be. but the people have to be people or it gets old very quickly. Vampires, outer space, apocalypse.... the girl will still want to go to the prom and need a dress (sheesh I do a horrible Whedon sum-up).

the weirdo is a nice idea for a short-story (nobody really reads those) or a guest-spot. unless you can do it really, really well. sticking with the Whedon theme: Gloria, River, Spike, Drusilla. but, again, it is only their incompatibility to the regular characters where they shine and serve a purpose.

another example would be Door in Gaiman's Neverwhere. or really the whole setting. it only becomes accessible because we see it through the eyes of a "normal" person. same holds true for Stardust. heck, all of Gaiman's books work on that premise. you need the "Joe the Plumber" entry, if you will, into a story. Crichton's Timeline worked that way. the "Island in the sea of time" line worked along those ropes.

it is extremely difficult, and not necessarilyadvantageous, to start out with a weirdo.

 

[really]

My mother wasn't happy when she realised the painting in the living room wasn't original.

The moma & musee d'orsay rock by the way.

 

[GoodGame]

Totally schizophrenic protagonists aren't fun to follow. Someone who just has a different viewpoint because of phobia or obsession might be ok to comprehend.

 

[Kyriakos]

Thank you for your comments

So it would seem that most people feel alienated by a strange protagonist. I agree that if the protagonist is entirely mad there is no ability to relate, and i always try to balance whatever madness there exists with clear thoughts, so as to show that the ability to rationalise is there; it is just that the person is obsessed with an unhealthy fantasy.
Afterall the fixation on something does not destroy the ability to think, although the thoughts may have a very personal 'logic'.

In my example the child is perfectly able to function in the world, is great at music, is capable of interacting to a degree with others (he goes to a musical school afterall) but on the other hand is certain that his own particular relation with an imaginary beast is what learning music is about, and this forms his view of things.

Would you think that a small, controlled degree of 'insanity' can be interesting in a story? Sinc ei write about psychological horror it is inevitable for me to seek just that.

 

[Kennigit]

I've always been into the offbeat main character, who can be weird/perverted/ultraviolent/etc. I'm not so sure that I'd enjoy a hidden dementia as much- most of the weird characters are the outsiders of society and know that. I'm big into the dystopian novels and novels like Catcher in the Rye or Catch-22. Those characters aren't functional in the worlds they are in, unlike your piano player, who functions normally but has a certain obsession on the side or whatever.

It would be trickier to write someone that has such a psych.

 

[Till]

Portraying the descent into madness is much more interesting than starting out with a crazy character. (Lovecraft managed this really well in Rats in the Walls, imo.)

If the character has to be insane from the start, there should be a reason for it, which will be revealed in the course of the story ( like in the Machinist).