Character Study of the Week: Grinner (No, really this time)
Who: Grinner
What: Dog (Breed indeterminate, possibly with some wolf mixed in)
When: circa 3030s – 3040s
Weapon of Choice: Maxillary Cutlery
Drool
Based on some of the responses to the April Fool’s article I thought this might be appropriate.
Grinner was the beloved childhood pet of Phelan Kell, a large, drooling dog of friendly temperament and as loyal a pet as any kid could want.
Sadly this loyalty meant that when a Liao assassin tried to kill Phelan Grinner jumped in, took the hit and a sizable chunk of the assassin’s throat in the bargain, dying a hero.
Less of a character and more of a character element, Grinner is a method of characterising Phelan Kell.
This is in part because Grinner plays no direct role in any aspect of any plot, yes he is one of the reasons Phelan is alive, but if Phelan were not alive there would be no Phelan arc, no Phelan story at all, so that is incidental. Most immediately Grinner is a part of a sad little story Phelan can tell Ranna, allowing both of them to bond over pets, loss and loyalty.
Further characterisation comes from just having a dog. And, well, it’s a sign that the setting is a pulp one that Phelan thinks his beloved pet had some part wolf in him.
Quite aside from the symbolism of where Phelan came from and where he wound up the simple, sad truth is that in a lot of fiction a dog can’t be special just because they’re a dog. Putting some wild wolf in there somewhere makes them an even more awesome thing than a purely domesticated dog that fights and dies protecting its owner.
If that sounded churlish then it’s because I quite like dogs and while I haven’t met one that’s had wolf blood I’ve met some that are pretty damn awesome regardless.
But it’s the nature of the setting that if a character is going to have something or know someone then they are innately going to be more awesome than an equivalent something or someone in the same position and theoretically equal functional value.
Basically Phelan is special so Grinner has to be special in some way.
It also means Phelan can’t simply have a normal dog that lives a normal dog life. Hell, even Phelan doesn’t live a normal life so the odds were skewed towards at least one interesting, almost fantastic story about the animal, and tearing out an assassin’s throat is as good as it gets.
As a side note it also characterises Romano Liao to a degree. The assassination attempt on Phelan was a part of a plan to strike at her sister Candice through her husband Justin Allard by going through his brother Daniel’s mercenary unit commander Morgan Kell by striking at his family.
That long, convoluted line of reasoning makes a certain sort of sense, however twisted. In the end it serves to show how nuts Romano is, it also demonstrates, once again, how petty she is. Can’t strike at her sister? Well then she’ll do one of the next best things: strike at someone remotely, tangentially related to involvement with her sister.
That’s some Saturday Morning Cartoon level vendetta there.
But regarding Grinner and his death: fantastical? Yes, more than a little, but its common fiction fodder for a close friend or pet (there’s a hair’s difference between the two) to sacrifice themselves for a main character.
This relationship also serves to show that Phelan can engender intense loyalty, and is capable of returning that loyalty, as shown by naming his ‘Mech, a Wolfhound, after Grinner.
It may not seem like much, coming from a pet, but it’s a small start early in life. Similarly a mistreated pet that turns on its owner characterises things in the opposite direction. Had anyone ever wanted to further the symmetry between Phelan and Vlad then there would be a story about Vlad owning a pet cat he drove mercilessly onward, working it nearly to death and then holding it aloft as a testament to his will. Said pet would likely be a rock to boot.
Characterisation can’t happen all at once, and that’s not simply a matter of pacing the storytelling, it’s also a matter of in setting chronology.
Its one thing to plonk a character into the middle of events and have them run with things, what makes them seem all the more natural is to give them history which impacts on current events. Inclusion of seemingly minor events can make the characterisation more organic.
It’s why there are stories told about a characters childhood in novels, it shows that characteristics they present now have been present or developed earlier in life, that they are innate or otherwise integral to what we see in the story.
Giving Phelan a past means he does not appear to have been plucked fully formed and placed upon a stage. Yes, that’s exactly what’s happened from a Real World perspective, but elements such as Grinner widen the character beyond that within the story, grounds Phelan within the setting and expands him beyond the immediate storyline.
And a quick note regarding weapons choice, I don’t know if maxillary cutlery is an actual term, but I read it once, long ago and just liked the sound of it. Then at least it referred to teeth and just sounds cool.
