Main Characters: Based on Oneself or Totally Different?

[WannabeWriter]

I've read in several how-to-write books that when creating a main character, it's better not to base it on oneself. Is this really true? Because I'm writing a novel right now, and I tried at first to create a character totally opposite of myself. What happened was that I gravitated towards basing the character on myself, because I kept asking myself, "What would I do in so-and-so situation?" They say basing a main character on oneself creates a boring one, but is it always true? For me, I have the feeling that taking this path would be better for me, simply because I think I'm an interesting person in real life.

What do you think?

[James D. Macdonald]

This is a maybe-yes-maybe-no kind of answer:

First, every one of my characters, major and minor, is me in some way ... who else do I know as well?

Second, Google on Mary Sue fanfiction to see why basing a character on yourself can lead you into a minefield.

[WannabeWriter]

I don't want to create a perfect character. In fact, I'm aware of this and am including my own imperfections (and exaggerating them somewhat) so that the character is more human.

[maestrowork]

But why just yourself? Don't you know other imperfect, flawed humans?

Instead of "What would I do?" why not ask "What would Mom do?" or "What would Judy do?"

While I agree that all my characters have a part of me in them, they also have parts of people I know or I observe. To think my main character is just like me is rather narcissistic, don't you think?

[WannabeWriter]

I know a couple of others and the flaws they have, too. I'm still trying to decide what to incorporate from those others. :)

Even so, is basing a character mostly on oneself necessarily equal narcissism and mean that the character won't be interesting? So far, one example I can think of is the character of James Bond. There are parallels between Bond and Ian Fleming himself. I don't see anything wrong with that, and Fleming's Bond novels turned out real good.

[maestrowork]

It depends on what you write. If you're writing a personal, intimate drama in which the main character goes through something close to your own experiences, then sure, why not? But if you're writing about a larger-than-life superhero fighting alien invaders in a galaxy far, far away, then... unless you're larger than life yourself and you have experience fighting invaders of any kind, then I don't see the purpose of basing your character on yourself...

Like UJ said, maybe, maybe not.

[cwfgal]

I've read in several how-to-write books that when creating a main character, it's better not to base it on oneself. Is this really true? Because I'm writing a novel right now, and I tried at first to create a character totally opposite of myself. What happened was that I gravitated towards basing the character on myself, because I kept asking myself, "What would I do in so-and-so situation?" They say basing a main character on oneself creates a boring one, but is it always true? For me, I have the feeling that taking this path would be better for me, simply because I think I'm an interesting person in real life.

What do you think?

We all think we're interesting in real life but that doesn't mean we would make a good lead character in a book or that enough other people would find us interesting. Using small bits of yourself as parts of a character is fine and I think there is a little of any writer in every character they create. But totally fictional characters should be painted with a much broader stroke.

Instead of asking yourself what you would do if placed in a certain situation, ask what others you know would do. How would a woman react? How would your boss react? How would your friend, or neighbor, or dentist react?

I think many fiction writers produce their best work when they learn how to get out of their own minds and step inside the heads of others.

Beth

[Kiva Wolfe]

I enjoy writing flawed characters. It tends to make them real and human. Are they like me? Yes, one of many aspects: adventurer, athlete, lover, dreamer, doer, be-er, parent from hell, hero, coward, villain, friend, mentor, man, woman, inner child, dog, cat, mule, etc.


Each character I create is more a part of me than the people I know.

[WannabeWriter]

This is good advice so far. I'm still thinking of basing a character on myself because the story I have in mind, like Maestrowork said, partly involves a character going through what I went through or am still going through, though not all of it is literally identical. Just similar.

I forgot to mention this, but that's not the only character I'm thinking about. I'm creating another character for another series that will be of the opposite sex (female), and I'm trying to create her based on friends and other people I know.

It's not that I'm narcissistic and only writing about a character based on me. It's just that it's the first thing I feel very inspired to do. :)

[Saanen]

I don't know, it seems contrary to fiction to have to think, "What would I do in this situation?" unless the character is so fully patterned on you (exaggerated or not) that you're essentially writing about yourself. Think, "What would my character do?" and if you can't answer that, you need to explore your character before you jump in and start writing. I do a bit of this mentally while I'm still going over worldbuilding just by imagining scenes and seeing how my characters react or what they say--sort of daydreaming, really, and the scenes as often as not don't even end up in the book, but I do learn a lot about my characters.

I think all authors put themselves into all their characters to some extent, but if you make your main character an exaggerated version of yourself A) it will show and you'll be embarrassed a few years down the road and B) what will you do for your next book's main character?

[Azure Skye]

There's a little bit of me in all of my characters but there's also a little bit of people I know in there too.

[CaptMorgan]

Usually, I don't base my characters on myself...but with my latest book, I made an exception. My friend, who read the first chapter, put it down and said, "Mandy...this is you." Well, yeah, except her name's Madison and she's good at playing the guitar.

[Perks]

I know that all my characters (uh oh, all of them?) have elements of me. Except, for the record, my body count is much lower. hardly anything to raise an eyebrow, really.People that know me well will laugh when they read certain things. They say, "I could just hear you." That started to worry me at one point and gave rise to a great way to get honest feedback. I sent some stuff with a friend and told her to give it to someone that I have never met and was unlikely to meet and gather eractions for me. It was very helpful.

[Diana Hignutt]

There's a lot of me in Tolian, my trilogy's heroine. Ray Bradbury, in one of my favorite books on writing, really reinforced that you should write what you know, and as UJ said, who do I know better? Still, she has evolved in the course of the story to become much more of herself than me. Other people I know are present in other characters, but, just like they say about dreams, all the characters are you.

diana

[Mistook]

I don't know that it matters at all. The agents, publishers, and readers don't know you from Adam, so how would they know (and why would they care) if the main character is based on yourself?

I'd say the only exception to that would be if you write a novel about a person who is struggling to write a novel - which is cheesy - but even that's been done.

Also, one of the main criteria by which to judge any work of art, be it painting, sculpture, or a novel, is "Do I feel I know the painter/sculptor/writer." Even if you base every character on other people, it all filters through your own mind (or soul, if you will), and well it should.

If it would be better to have novels where all trace of the authors own personality were removed, then I'm sure we could program computers to crank out formula stories without any human involvement in the process.

[maestrowork]

Actually I also love writing characters that are very different from me.

[Perks]

Actually I also love writing characters that are very different from me.

Yeah, somehow going through the hassle and expense of surgical sexual reorientation to write a character as a man doesn't seem worth it. :)

I think that's one of the great things about doing this. I'm not a hat person - my head is too large and too square, but you get to wear all different hats.

[WannabeWriter]

I'll clarify again by saying that my character is not 100% me. Just maybe about 50%, but I carefully selected the characteristics of me that would make a unique protagonist. For the rest, I have the character do things I don't really do as much.

[scribbler1382]

I think all characters are potential you's. Even the evil ones.

"How would I deal with women if I was brought up by a single Mom who was a hooker?"

"How badly would I want to kill a rapist if I was orphaned at 7 when a rapist killed my Dad and then raped and killed my Mom?"

"If I was a crooked cop in a family that had been honorable cops for 7 generations, what would I do to protect my secret?"

The possibilities are endless. And I don't really see how you could possibly do it any other way.

[Jamesaritchie]

What matters is how well the character is drawn, how well-rounded and realistc he or she is. I think most charactwrs are based on the writer to a degree, whether it's intentional or not.

Some of my characters are as close to being 100% me as it's possible to make them, while others have as little of me as I can put in. But even some of the main characters who aren't me are still my exact opposites, which is really just another way of writing yourself.

One problem with writing yourself as the main character is that some writers tend to idealize the character, and to have him or her react in situations not as the writer really would, but as they hope they would. This tends to create Mary Sue characters. But I think, in all honesty, that Mary Sue characters happen just as often when the character isn't based on the writer.

It is, I think, a tricky question, and the kind of novel you're writing may make the difference. I know how I react when faced with a fistfight, I know how I react when I'm being shot at, and I know most of my flaws, even if I can't manage to correct them. If you're going to base a character on yourself, then you need to know yourself well, and be brutally honest in the representation.

But this is true of all characters, no matter who they're based on.

[sunandshadow]

Lol, I actually fit a stereotype for once? :eek: I'm writing my first novel, which is first person and has a main character who is largely me except male. But, I'm not worried that my main character will be boring or mary-sueish, because I gave him a test drive in a piece of fanfiction and not one but several readers pronounced themselves in love with him, which I doubt they would have done if they met me. ;)

[aruna]

well, I'm going to be difficult here and ask, Who exactly are you? WHich takes us into the realm of philosophy/psychology/metaphysics.

I happen to believe that I am not my ego; and all the suggestions up to now are about "us" as egos. The ego, in my view, is simply a cloak I wear to navigate this life, and I try not to take it too seriously.

When I write a character I create him/her from scratch. Then I become that character. And I know and react the way that character would, because I AM him/her. While wriitng there is no me in the sense of my everyday ego so there is no one to compare with.

[Diana Hignutt]

Yeah, somehow going through the hassle and expense of surgical sexual reorientation to write a character as a man doesn't seem worth it. :)


Ah, but imagine the amazing insight it could afford you into the psyche of both sexes. Few could claim to write from such a perspective. Trust me, as someone who went the other way -- it's a good marketing tool, too. But, no, I didn't do it just for the story... :)

diana

[Kiva Wolfe]

The adage Write What You Know implies that writing and the characters we create stem from experiences, personal and at-arms-length. It just makes sense that there has to be a little bit of us, people we know or observe, in each character we create.

[sassandgroove]

I think it depends on the style, and the writer. My best friend writes not only characters based on herself, but all her friends too. I quite enjoy reading her work becuase I get to find me. She always changes us (including herself) by accentuating a quirk, flaw or attribute, and making the character bolder or more timid or something, and puts us in different situations than we actually find ourselves in real life. The characters based on me are separate from me, but have some link to me. She always has them as a flighty people person. I insist I am not flighty, but she remembers me as a 10 year old, so what do you want? I think that is what makes it work, base it on real people but change the locale. Otherwise it becomes trite, I think. ( I think a lot...)

I write in a completely different manner. All my main characters are like athena, they sprung complete out of my head. They are all aspects of myself. How I'd like to be, and ideal, or some dream/fantasy. They aren't me in a different situation so much as grewout of me, and are in different situations than I find myself. One girl grew out of the fact that I had to make a difficult decision. I lived with her for months, and agonized with her over her decision, because it was easier than greiving as myself. Now that i am grown, I face things more on my own, but she (and all the others) are still real to me and now populate my novel. Yay.

I think you have to be careful to base a character on yourself to closely. Woody Allen does it with success, but I put to you that Bullets Over Broadway is better becuase the pained writer is played by John Cusack instead of Allen.

[Coco82]

Well, a lot of my characters have different aspects of me in them, but that's just me. Also, I draw from people I've met, composites, etc.