how to build intriguing characters

[sandoz]

Somebody recently told me the characters in the piece I've been working on seem flat. The one character they took an interest in was the villian, who I thought to be the most transparent and exaggerated of all, almost a cartoon of a person. I worked especially hard on these (goddamn) characters -- even gave them favorite colors, for chrissakes. It's been a stumbling block for me in the past, but this criticism was right on the money. What I'm wondering of you successful writers out there is how do the characters you create compare with real people in your minds? Are the elements to their personalities subtle or exaggerated? Seems like you've got to knock readers over the head with a brick to get them to go along with your story, or shake out a bag of army men and say, "here's the one with the gun, and here's the one with the radio," etc. I'm sure it depends on genre and tone and font size and typeset, but what I've learned as a reader is that characters can carry even the thinnest of plotlines, but it never works the other way around.

Army men... any of you kiddies know what those are?

[Julie Worth]

I don’t build characters. I discover them. They have their own personalities and quirks; they even name themselves. One of them insisted on changing his name, and when I refused, he died.

[Valona]

I remember army men.

Characterization is an art. I'm not sure what I say will help much, but I'll try.

When I began creating my characters, many years ago, I thought long about my them. Some writers like to make bios of their characters. Personally, I just get to know them almost as if they were real people. Well, that's not quite true either. I get to know them better than I know real people, maybe even better than I know myself. It's kind of like playing god. With real people one cannot truly get into their minds and souls. But with characters, you can live the life of the novel through them. See as they see, feel as they feel, know what they know, think as they think . . . .

In my recently finished novel, The Bridge Beckons, I've tried to get into the hearts and souls of all the main characters, even the main antagonist. I've made them all sympathetic to the reader, but there's no way I could convey everything I know and feel about my characters to the reader. That would constitute a huge info dump, and would be unnecessary. It's that knowing, feeling, understanding, etc., that I hope I've been able to convey to the reader through my writing, even though there's so much more to the characters than that.

[JA Konrath]

Don't describe characters. Give them goals, then prevent them from reaching those goals. Their traits should come out through dialog and action, and be directly related to their unfulfilled goals. Interesting characters are created through conflict, not description.

[Jaycinth]

In his book, "On Writing" , Stephen King says he 'interviews' his characters.

After I started doing that, my readers became interested in my characters. One of my friends wants to know who I based a character on so she can date him, she does not believe I made him up. He's too 3-D for that. When you know things about your character that don't have a real bearing on the story, just your character's reality...like your character is a big honking bull wrestler, but as a kid he discovered a worm in an apple, so he doesn't eat apples...well that has a bearing on his personality even if we never find that out. I think I have pages of character interviews that will never see the light of publication...and shouldn't... but it allows me to imply quirks that make them more human ( or alien as the case may be.)

Of course, the story improved.

At the very least it is an interesting exercise!!

And congrats on developing a villian that people respond to!!!

[Celia Cyanide]

It's really hard to give advice about how to develop good characters. Especially since I would probably have to read your work to figure out what you were doing wrong that was making them come up "flat." (Your friend's words, not mine.)

If you develop characters enough, you really do start to feel like they are real people, and propelling the story forward. It can be great, and it can be annoying, because sometimes you feel like you are not in control of your own story. And, it's very possible to write well developed characters without this happening, so it is not the only way to tell you're doing it right.

One thing that sometimes makes characters flat is when you think of their motivation from your perspective, not theirs. For example:

Critter: Why did she kidnap her?

Me: Because I needed a conflict! hello!

Critter: But what would someone do that?

Me: Because the story would have no plot if she didn't?

Critter: So...why is she suddenly being really sweet here?

Me: Because the character needed an arc. The way to make a well rounded character is to have them do one thing they don't usually do, and you're all set.

Conversely, I have the opposite problem when one of my characters does something I hadn't planned for, and I know I am going to have to get them to tell me why they did it before the end of the book. The readers will want to know, but I'm not sure I can figure it out. I mean, I can come up with something, sure, but that won't necessarily be the correct reason.

I hope this helps. If you have more specific questions about what is wrong with your characters, I can give me specific comments.

[sandoz]

Thanks so much for the quick replies. Very helpful stuff.

Interviewing characters seems like a good technique. And Mr. Konrath, hope you don't mind I print that out and tape it to my computer. That's the best advice I've ever heard on the subject. Valona: thanks, to make it interesting for me I'm creating characters I wish I could spend time with, playing God in a sense, but maybe that's what makes them flat. Desires are oftentimes lopsided or two-dimensional. Celia, I'll post something for diagnosis soon.

Any futher comments welcome, but I wanted to add one thing. I really enjoy writing dialogue, to the point where the characters speak and I merely take dictation. I mean, that's the thrill of this activity, right? My goal is to get to where I can strip away dialogue tags altogether, using them only as spacers to pace the characters' speech, but it seems difficult without relying on catch-phrases or vernacular.

Cheers,

[maestrowork]

Are these characters alive in your mind? Do they talk to you? If you have to "fabricate" facts and stuff for you, then I think maybe that's why your characters are flat. Saying things like, "Well, Jack, I think you like the color blue and your favorite food is cheesecake" won't do the trick because it's superficial and artificial. What do the characters tell you about themselves? What are they quirks and idiosyncracies (again, not to be "assigned" by you)?

Also, ask your characters what they want, what they desire, and how are they going to get what they want. Every character, however minor in your book, thinks they're the star of the show. Perhaps that's the problem you're facing -- only you villain thinks he is the star of the show because he's such a BAD guy. Bad guys have all the fun. Well, give your other characters the chance to be the star, let them have some fun. Let them tell their stories. Then as author you got to choose whose stories to reveal in your book... but don't shut your characters up.

Also, observe other people. Coffee shops or book stores or restaurants are great places to people watch. Take note of what these people are like, and how they're different from each other. The way they speak, the way they walk, talk, or act. The way they laugh.

[Flapdoodle]

Somebody recently told me the characters in the piece I've been working on seem flat. The one character they took an interest in was the villian, who I thought to be the most transparent and exaggerated of all, almost a cartoon of a person. I worked especially hard on these (goddamn) characters -- even gave them favorite colors, for chrissakes. It's been a stumbling block for me in the past, but this criticism was right on the money. What I'm wondering of you successful writers out there is how do the characters you create compare with real people in your minds? Are the elements to their personalities subtle or exaggerated? Seems like you've got to knock readers over the head with a brick to get them to go along with your story, or shake out a bag of army men and say, "here's the one with the gun, and here's the one with the radio," etc. I'm sure it depends on genre and tone and font size and typeset, but what I've learned as a reader is that characters can carry even the thinnest of plotlines, but it never works the other way around.

Army men... any of you kiddies know what those are?

Sounds like you've been trying too hard - my take on it is that characters are illustrated by their actions. Favourite colour doesn't really say much about a character (Unless they - say - dress up in Pink all the time, in which case it says that they're obsessed by Pink, I guess.) Stuff like this - external characteristics? - may help a reader picture their appearance, but won't give them much idea of their character.

[jules]

Are these characters alive in your mind? Do they talk to you? If you have to "fabricate" facts and stuff for you, then I think maybe that's why your characters are flat. Saying things like, "Well, Jack, I think you like the color blue and your favorite food is cheesecake" won't do the trick because it's superficial and artificial. What do the characters tell you about themselves? What are they quirks and idiosyncracies (again, not to be "assigned" by you)?

This is one of the reasons writing an interview scene helps so much. When you're doing that, you as the writer get to decide the questions... but when recording the character's answers, you should generally just write the first thing that comes into your head after you've formulated the question. It somehow bypasses the 'it would be cool if I had a character who...' thing (which usually doesn't work, because those characters just feel forced) and goes to something subconscious. Down there, you have a model of how people work. You don't understand it fully on a conscious level, but it is there. You need it and excercise it all the time, predicting what different people will do. It probably knows more about people than you ever will, so it can be very good to trust it.

[azbikergirl]

I think it depends on the interview questions. "Where did you go to school?" and "What was your favorite subject?" don't do much to help me discover my characters. OTOH, "What are you most terrified of in all the world?" might be a start, followed by, "What happened that made you so frightened of that?"

When I want a character to fulfill a certain role, I try to think of the least likely person to want to do that, then put him/her in a situation that demands it and start building on the 'why' aspect. It doesn't always work out, but that's where I start.

[Jamesaritchie]

Somebody recently told me the characters in the piece I've been working on seem flat. The one character they took an interest in was the villian, who I thought to be the most transparent and exaggerated of all, almost a cartoon of a person. I worked especially hard on these (goddamn) characters -- even gave them favorite colors, for chrissakes. It's been a stumbling block for me in the past, but this criticism was right on the money. What I'm wondering of you successful writers out there is how do the characters you create compare with real people in your minds? Are the elements to their personalities subtle or exaggerated? Seems like you've got to knock readers over the head with a brick to get them to go along with your story, or shake out a bag of army men and say, "here's the one with the gun, and here's the one with the radio," etc. I'm sure it depends on genre and tone and font size and typeset, but what I've learned as a reader is that characters can carry even the thinnest of plotlines, but it never works the other way around.

Army men... any of you kiddies know what those are?

I think your problem may be trying to turn character tags into characterization. It isn't favorite color, favorite food, background, clothing, etc. that makes a character real. These are all just tags. And it's one reason I loathe character charts so very much. What makes a character real is what that character says, how he says it, and it's the way that character acts and reacts to various situations.

This may be why your readers think the villain is a more realistic character. You're showing him in action.

Show versus tell can be overemphasized, but the one place where it's triply important is with characterization. Telling readers about your character doesn't make them real. Letting the readers see what your characters do, how they act and react, how they speak, etc, is what makes them real.

Really, as a reader, I couldn't care less what a character's favorite color is. Whether it's green, blue, purple or buffalo butt brown doesn't make him one bit more believable. Show me whether or not he has a temper. Show me how he reacts to a nasty or uncomfortable situation. Let me listen to the way he speaks.

Great characters are ones that act, react, and speak the way real people do. Great characters are not ones that simply have tags and labels that tell readers they're real people.

[maestrowork]

I think it depends on the interview questions. "Where did you go to school?" and "What was your favorite subject?" don't do much to help me discover my characters. OTOH, "What are you most terrified of in all the world?" might be a start, followed by, "What happened that made you so frightened of that?"

When I want a character to fulfill a certain role, I try to think of the least likely person to want to do that, then put him/her in a situation that demands it and start building on the 'why' aspect. It doesn't always work out, but that's where I start.

Yeah, questions like "What's your favorite color or Chinese dish?" don't really matter. Try these questions instead:

1. What do you most want out of life?
2. Are your parents still alive? What's your childhood like?
3. If your wife cheated on you, what would you do?
4. Do you like having sex? And how often? With whom?

The reasons why villains are usually so interesting is that they're always doing something, against the protagonists. They also have strong desires and wants and motivations to do the things they do. And many of them also have interesting backgrounds. I bet many villains would tell you immediately the answers to the questions above...

Now try your protagonists... ;) Many protagonists are flat or dull because they're on a journey. Many of them don't know what they want yet. Many won't act until something happens to them, then they ponder, react, and finally make a decision to act. They're not always active. If they don't have a quest or something they want very much and will do anything to get to it (i.e. Frodo in LotR) then the readers would go "ho hum... why should I care?" You can give the protagonists all kind of quirks... he would still come out pretty dull.

[James D. Macdonald]

Here's something for characters: No one's 100% anything.

[reph]

Forget fiction for a moment. What makes a person seem three-dimensional to you in reality? For me, her favorite color doesn't count, or where she went to school, or what her health problems are. I get an emotional sense of her from how I feel during our interactions. There has to be a relationship, or at least conversation. People reveal themselves, their personalities, as narcissistic or anxious or kind or responsible or authoritarian through what they say and do. And some people never do seem three-dimensional: there isn't anyone in there.

For someone I don't know, such as a public figure, I build up an image using second-hand information. I'm aware that it can't be trusted as accurate. It's something like a stereotype of a group.

I'll say this tentatively because it's only a hypothesis: For a convincing character, you need to present the person's values. What does she find important, and what is she indifferent to? What does the person care about?

[My-Immortal]

Forget fiction for a moment. What makes a person seem three-dimensional to you in reality? For me, her favorite color doesn't count, or where she went to school, or what her health problems are. I get an emotional sense of her from how I feel during our interactions. There has to be a relationship, or at least conversation. People reveal themselves, their personalities, as narcissistic or anxious or kind or responsible or authoritarian through what they say and do. And some people never do seem three-dimensional: there isn't anyone in there.

For someone I don't know, such as a public figure, I build up an image using second-hand information. I'm aware that it can't be trusted as accurate. It's something like a stereotype of a group.

I'll say this tentatively because it's only a hypothesis: For a convincing character, you need to present the person's values. What does she find important, and what is she indifferent to? What does the person care about?

I think you're onto something there. You need to dig deep into the heart of the character and find out what makes them tick. The fact that they like Big Macs and the color blue doesn't really do much for a reader. Try to get the readers to have a reaction to the character - good or bad. Have the character have an opinion about something important. Look at those topics that cause people to feel uncomfortable and see what your characters think about them. What do they hate? Find a redeeming quality for your villain and a major fault in your hero. Exploit both. Remember that each character believes they are the 'hero' of their own story - even the villain.

Those are just some random thoughts that hopefully help. Good luck in your writing.

[Fishmonkey]

Good advice here -- especially description vs characterization. Here's a technique a friend and I used when we both were struggling with some character stuff (his villain was a bit over the top, and my protag was just being an ***). We had them write letters to each other (well, e-mails), and it did wonders for discovering what these characters were all about. Try it -- the only drawback is that you need a buddy for this exercise.

[RubyRoo]

The other day I though about how there was probably a nation int he world who thought right handed people were evil and that it would probably be best to be both handed and I suddenly knew which one of my characters would be lefted handed...it was weird cause it just came to me.

[Celia Cyanide]

We were discussing character development in my writing class last night, and I realized something. Since I started acting a few years ago, I have no trouble developing characters. They just come out, and start doing things I didn't plan for. This didn't happen so much before I acted.

I would recommend taking some acting classes to help you develop your characters. Or if you have any friends who act, have them help you set up some improv scenes. When you are in the moment, and thinking like the character, it all comes out. You don't have to think, "What would my character do?" You already know, because you become the character doing it.

Once, I was playing a character I had created, and I kept falling asleep during class. My instructor was getting irritated with me. Then, when we went back to our normal selves, I felt fine. But while I was in character, I genuinely felt tired. I wasn't thinking to myself, "act tired, she didn't get any sleep last night." I just did it.

[sandoz]

Ha, I can see it now…



“What’s your favorite color, Jane?” said Dick.

“Red. What’s yours?”

“Blue, you know, just because.”

“Interesting,” Jane said, staring blankly into space. “What’s your favorite food?”



I’ll have you know there was no discussion of favorite colors anywhere in the story. I just meant I filled out a character chart beforehand that read like a 1040 tax form and included details as irrelevant as favorite colors. I’m sure acting helps with writing -- James Kirkwood, for example.

[Jaycinth]

There was a thread a few days ago, that gave a link to a blog in which a writer was having an interesting discussion with his character. If someone can point you to it, you'll see. You don't want to do a "Today Show" interview with your character...you want to do a Geraldo interview. Better than that....An Abbott and Costello interview!!

[Optimus]

There's another great discussion about this very subject going on over on Done Deal between some novelists and screenwriters.

http://www.scriptsales.com/boards/showthread.php?t=14984

The article in the first post is good, but Jake Schuster makes some really insightful points in his post a few posts down.

[FolkloreFanatic]

Try "Sympathy Without Saintliness" over at SFF:

http://www.sff.net/people/alicia/artsympathy.htm

It seems obvious, but it's remarkable how many mistakes we make despite claiming to know the basicmistakes to avoid. Hell, the whole damn archive there is useful.

[Jamesaritchie]

I think characters that grow and change can be good, but I also think such things can be, and often are, taken too far. Much too far.

A character who learns from whatever the story throws at him is good, but changing can sometimes be a bit much, if handled poorly. If you have a character readers like, then why change him. If you have a character readers don't like, are they going to stick with him long enough to see him change.

Major changes in character often work better in secondary characters of villains.

Learn and grow, yes, but take a look at some of the more memorable series character of the past. Sherlock Holmes, Travis McGee, Spenser, Sam Spade, Philip Marlowe, etc. Read book one and book last and see just how much actual change there is in the character. They do grow, they do learn, but they don't change much at all.

The story where a truly rotten guy turns into a wonderful person, or a guy doing all the right things turns into something evil have their place, but it can get old fast.

So can the story where a guy starts out hating this or that; blacks, gays, ketchup on hot dogs, etc. This sort of story works better than the former, but it's also prone to manipulation, and doesn't always come across as anything other than a lesson in morality.

And so many changes writers put their characters through are cliched almost beyond usability. The first one that comes to mind is the hero who is out to avenge someone, and cuts a swath of blood in the process. But when he gets to the last guy who needs killing, he's had enough. He doesn't want to kill anymore.

For me, creating characters who are human, and who actually act human without me manipulating them into unnecessary or unbelievable change works best. Most changes in real people are subtle, and even the big changes usually take place over a long period of time. In real life, change is usually a process, a long one, and very often isn't change at all. It's just a matter of bringing to teh surface what was always underneath. I'm not the same person I was twenty years ago, but I haven't turned into someone else, either.

I think "Live and learn" is a good rule with characters. But "characters must change" can be more than a bit much, and flies in the face of some of the more popular fiction ever written.

As for sympathetic characters, I think sympathy rests squarely on the shoulders of motivation. I need to be able to say, "Yes, that's how I would react." Or, "I might not react that way, but I fully understand why he does." If this happens, I'll have sympathy for the character.

But the moment I say, "That reaction is over the top," or "I'd never react that way in a million years," or the real killer, "For God's sake, get over it," that character has lost all sympathy I might have had.

[jst5150]

Characters worth reading have flaws. All of them. Good characters. Bad characters. Neutral characters. If we didn't care about flaws, the people would seem to perfect. It would be like having a government PR staff that could write every great novel we'd ever want .

Whatever character you create, ignore assigning things to it like color, food and drink. Instead, start thinking about vices. Habits. Demons. Things that move the story along and coincide with events of the day/chapter. What keeps this guy awake at night? What the hell did she do 20 years ago that gives her nightmares or gives her such low self-esteem? Why can that guy eat 15 Ding Dongs in a sitting and why does he want to do that. Why does he drink so much? Love basketball? Glory in a Dodgers win?

Finally, why are any and all of those traits integral to the story you are trying to tell? Who cares what sort of favorite food a character has if it doesn't do anything to move the story along? Then, it just becomes a character expose rather than a story.

[Arithion]

Originally I just wrote, letting the characters flow, and found myself running into a lot of trouble, because they tended to meld together and my character would literally change during the flow of the story. Not that they'd develop with it, they'd change.

So, I understand that you felt filling in one of those character flow chart/questionairres would help, because I did this myself. The danger here is: you don't feel your character. You build him together like an IKEA furniture assembly guide tells you to - and they don't come alive, they're just an object you've built.

There's been some great advice in this thread, but it's all just different ways that different people 'feel' their characters.

Mine? Mine pop into my head. I get a comment one will make stuck in my head, and the character slowly emerges from that, not leaving me alone. Or, my favourite muse (since he takes on many forms when I do different things) he popped up in a story he wasn't 'supposed' to be in, becomming a character that wasn't supposed to be there, and completely recreated everything. He's real - his reactions, he smokes like a chimney, is flawed beyond belief... I adore him because he feels so alive to me.

Let them talk to you, hear the comments they make during your favourite TV series, or ask them what they think while you watch a movie. Let the character react - don't make their reactions for them.

Looking back at this, I guess it sounds like I have voices in my head - but damn - I hope they don't lock me up for it, I love my characters being so lively. You might not - so just try on what fits for you... just make them real for yourself, and other people should see it too.

[KiwiPhoenix]

I am completely inexperienced and the furthest thing from a reliable source, but...

My main character is still something of an enigma to me. I don't know what his birth name was, only what he calls himself. I don't know much about his past, because he refuses to talk about it, except when he drinks, and he doesn't drink much. Etc...

Don't create these people/beings. They're more along the lines of an intimate friend. You should know most things about them, but not everything. Nobody knows every last detail about anyone else, so blanks in a bio seem natural, and even beneficial.

[SirOtter]

I find that everything flows from these two simple questions:

What does this character want?

What is he or she willing to do to get it?

How they react to the complications you throw in their path depends on these two things.

BTW, I rarely describe anyone's physical appearance, although in my current WIP, I have a character described by a blind man, based solely on sound and smell. According to a friend who herself has a visual impairment, I hit it very close to the mark. That made my day.

[Hillgate]

This works for me: 'three-dimensional' protag =

1. My perception of myself.
2. Others' perception of me.
3. My perception of others' perception of me.

The greater the perception gap, the more interesting the protag.

Conflict is extremely important because without it there's not much. It doesn't have to be violent, or even external, but generally everything flows from conflict.

Just think: if everything was perfect, everyone had everything, everyone wanted to maintain the status quo, nobody would write anything at all. And then we'd all be twiddling our thumbs. And missing books. So things wouldn't be perfect after all. So we'd want to do something about it...;)

[sunandshadow]

The main character development technique I use is this:

1. Identify characters that strike me as particularly interesting in other fiction (for some reason this is usually anime or fantasy movies, but once in a while other sources).

2. See if two or more of the characters that interest me are significantly similar. If a character was minor or undeveloped in the original context, make up my own details to flesh them out, or maybe research what other writers have done with them by reading fanfiction about them; mentally editing particularly awful thing their author did with them is also fine. Group them and identify distinguishing traits of the group, as well as differences between the group members, especially differences where I prefer the way one character was developed tot he way another was. The result of this analysis is a character archetype.

3. Using the analysis of the group, create an original character of that archetype who has the best elements of them and some original twists.

4. Characters don't stand on their own, a lot of their value comes from their relationship with other characters, their backstory, and their role in the main plot. I develop this when brainstorming/planning a new story. (Maybe it's obvious, but if not I should point out that steps 1-3 are not something I do for each story, they are something I do perpetually and whenever a character catches my attention, building a library of archetypes in my mind so the characters are ready and waiting when I need them for a particular story.)

[TravisKerr]

Here, this is a very famous questionnaire that you can ask your characters:

http://www.chick.net/proust/question.html

Sorry if someone posted this link already; didn't bother to look. Anyways, the Proust question's helped me greatly with figuring out very deep aspects of my character's personality.

[IdiotsRUs]

Have a character who is not POV. Give him a backstory that he would rather die than tell. Let his actions and veiled comments hint at it. <--- intrigue

[LadyShaun]

I agree with Julie. Your characters are already there. They're on the bus stops, at your job or school, down the street, all over. In order to captivate your readers, you have to give them characters with whom they can relate. They have to say, Oh my God, that's exactly how I feel about that, or that what I would do, or even better..........this auther has been stalking me, my whole life is in this book. We can't create a personality, we can only describe them. Let the little people in your head truly express themselves, openly. Edit later. Leave the little leaves on the tree alone and enjoy the entire forest.

Somebody recently told me the characters in the piece I've been working on seem flat. The one character they took an interest in was the villian, who I thought to be the most transparent and exaggerated of all, almost a cartoon of a person. I worked especially hard on these (goddamn) characters -- even gave them favorite colors, for chrissakes. It's been a stumbling block for me in the past, but this criticism was right on the money. What I'm wondering of you successful writers out there is how do the characters you create compare with real people in your minds? Are the elements to their personalities subtle or exaggerated? Seems like you've got to knock readers over the head with a brick to get them to go along with your story, or shake out a bag of army men and say, "here's the one with the gun, and here's the one with the radio," etc. I'm sure it depends on genre and tone and font size and typeset, but what I've learned as a reader is that characters can carry even the thinnest of plotlines, but it never works the other way around.

Army men... any of you kiddies know what those are?

[fancie]

Arithion quote: Looking back at this, I guess it sounds like I have voices in my head - but damn - I hope they don't lock me up for it, I love my characters being so lively. You might not - so just try on what fits for you... just make them real for yourself, and other people should see it too.
__________________


LOL...My characters talk in my head all the time. They are so distinct in their personalities that it's hard not to fall in love with them. Conversations between them just come out as the scene progresses. They're like people. They have feelings and dreams and react to situations in their own personal way.

I think growth in a character is good as they learn. I also think they should have flaws...everybody does.

This is just my experience with my books, but try seeing them as "friends" or people you know inside and out. IMO. :)

[oswann]

If you know what your character wants then you describe them by showing us how they go about obtaining the thing they want.

If your characters are amorphous masses who suffer plot twists, as intriguing as the twists may be, they will read as thin.

Os.

[Juliette Wade]

One thing I haven't seen appear in this discussion is the approach of sticking your character into a scene of conflict, and then charting his or her reactions to the events one by one.

People bring all of their past with them into every interaction or experience; it's on the basis of this that they judge what happens, and decide on their next action. The sight of a blade in another person's hand might remind them of the night they witnessed their father's murder. The scent of a woman's hair might remind them of someone by whom they had been betrayed, or whom they had loved. As a result of these evocations of memory, characters will have visceral emotional reactions, which they may or may not be able to reason themselves through as they choose their next course of action.

I was told by an agent that one of my characters was too stereotypical - this irked me, but then I realized I hadn't spent a lot of time digging into her personality. I had to ask myself why she did the things she did. It turned out that the reason she knew a lot about drugs and alcohol while never partaking of them herself was that her parents were addicts. This changed everything about her - the kinds of events that upset her, the kinds of situations in which she felt able to ask for help, etc.

If you start with a scene you've already written, you can ask yourself "why" questions for every move your character makes, and get to somewhere very interesting.

One last note: I notice you talking about removing dialog tags. While I generally like to keep my dialog tags light, it can become very confusing and eject the reader from the story if you use none at all. In my own work I try to balance "he said/she said" with descriptions of action ("he shook his head"/"she looked away" etc.) and instances where I skip a dialog tag altogether. I also like to include internalization from the POV character, showing that person's emotional reaction to what is being said - which ties back to the issue of characterization above.

I hope this helps.

[stuckupmyownera]

I read a blog recently (can't find the link :( ) that gave me a really good insight into character depth - something I'd never really understood before.

People act differently towards different people. Your character will seem different depending on whether he is talking to a trusted friend, a colleague with whom he is in competition, an enemy, his boss, a child, his lover or his mum. Bouncing your character off a variety of different other characters is perhaps the best way to explore (and show) the different sides of his personality. Using this theory, you can assemble a whole cast of characters designed to bounce off each other in certain ways.

[n-v-b]

I've found my characters build themselves, usually before I have started writing I have these people roaming around in my head wanting their stories told. Characters, as people in real life, tend not to fit into a group. They are usually not a 'bad' person or a 'good' person, they have many layers and may act in ways that might seem unexpected in some circumstances and this might be as a result of a past incident or previous 'baggage' if you like.

[katze]

The posts I've read so far have been a great help, so I'm going to add my little bit into it, and (since I'm doing a bad thing, and haven't read over every post in the entire thread) hope that no one else has said this before.

Forget the interviews, the questions, the character charts, and just write.

I'm only on chapter two of my first novel (started about three days ago on the actual writing process, and not just outlines and back story) and I just discovered something quirky about my main character, Vicky, that I had no idea of before, and it wasn't something she could have told me before it happened.

She falls to pieces under stress. She's never been under stress before, at least not of the 'my life just passed before my eyes because Hello, I nearly died just now!' kind. And when she's stressed, she says silly things. I wrote this, then stopped to look at it, and laughed, because of what she said: " You’re crazy! You’re crazy and stupid and I’m not going anywhere until I can find out how to get back home!”

Things like these aren't things that you can map out, because it's not something you can honestly say. If you've lived in a box all your life, and someone asks you, "How do you react under pressure?" you're not going to know, because you've never had the opportunity to find out, and if you want your characters to be real, then you have to get to know them the old fashioned way. By getting to know them.

[Rushie]

To me what gives characters depth is the same thing that gives real people depth: polarity. To contain opposites within one's self gives three dimensional substance like nothing else.

Example: In an episode of M.A.S.H., cold, unemotional Margaret Hoolihan secretly feeds and loves a little puppy. She can watch people suffer and die in surgery all day without being affected but when the puppy gets run over she falls to pieces. It's not that she doesn't care about the people, it's that she has developed the cold exterior to cope with her warm, caring inner nature - otherwise she would not be able to function around all the horror.

Other examples:

A character is arrogant, bossy, and strives to win at all costs. He appears to believe he is better than everyone else. Inside, he is convinced that he is below dirt, and will be condemned to Hell.

A survivor of child sexual abuse hates the abuser, yet paradoxically has fantasies about him.

A popular, articulate, and seemingly outgoing person is in reality painfully shy. Despite trying to avoid social situations, she attracts people to her.


Depth is shown through contradictory things involving emotion, beliefs, and relationships to others. People without internal contradiction - tension, are boring to me.

[Mad Queen]

I always start off with something a character does. Characters who don't do anything to move the story forward aren't useful, no matter how much potential they have. Perhaps I can save them for another story. Then I try to puzzle out why they did what they did. I think it's unhelpful to think about generic traits such as "selfish". No one is just selfish. Sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't. It's better to think about what they believe and what's important to them. I work at it until the character's actions seem unavoidable and the only reasonable thing to do -- what I myself would do if the character and I believed the same things and considered the same things important.

[ccv707]

Do not reveal everything about your character when you first introduce them. I'd suggest you avoid archetypes as well, because the charcs become predictable. And avoid lengthy exposition to give backstory--let your characters' actions show the reader what kind of people they are. Imply what these people are about, and let the story unravel these mysteries in its own time. Forcing anything down an audience's throat only serves to patronize them, and strips any sense of mystery or wonder away.

[unicornjam]

I'm all over the place when it comes to character creation. At the very least, I like to have an idea of a character's background (not set in stone), personality, and goals.

I cherry-pick from character sheets. Some of them ask irrelevant questions, but I don't believe they're inherently bad. Personally, I don't see the big difference between answering the more important questions now or later; it gets there regardless.

[Ken Schneider]

Your characters need a mysterious side to them that shows itself in snatches to keep the reader wondering about them.

And, the reader needs to feel something for the character by you making the reader happy, sad, ect. for the character's situation.

[Mel]

Going back to interviewing characters. If all you do is ask them questions then I think you're missing something. You want your characters to feel real, then treat them real. Ask personal questions. But, also when talking to them write down what they're doing. Body language and facial expressions will give you even more insight. Ask them something you might think will irritate them because you're delving into areas they don't want to talk about. Will they get up and leave or stay there and stare daggers at you? Laugh and shrug off the question?

I have two characters from different stories who sat and played with a knife while I interviewed them.

Something else to try is to ask them questions about the other characters in the story. Get their perspective from that angle. Can be quite interesting.

[raburrell]

I think sometimes it helps to take your characters out of the situation they're in to a place that's completely unrelated and figure out how they'd behave. If you find they just want to stand around and observe, or if they're dying to crawl back to where they were, etc, they're still flat. If they immediately start to act & take control (or at least you can think about it a bit more and get them to that point), they'll start to feel more real.
(examples: take a hardened cop character and stick him in a time machine back to his first-grade self. Or take an uptight heroine and get her stoned at a party. I find that little thought exercises like this really help me figure out what has shaped my characters into who they are in the moment.)
Creating a laundry list of character traits doesn't help anything, that's for certain.

[RiseBeauty]

There are great responses here. Someone posted an answer above about contradictory traits and that one most resembles my method for discovering characters.

From what I read, write, and see in films the most dynamic characters have contradictory traits. To use a popular and familiar example think of Hannibal Lechter (viscious, refined, cannabalistic, intelligent). He was a beast that people simply could not get enough of! I doubt he would have been as charismatic if he were living in a cave snatching people up to eat them. The fact that he did it with cultured style and French recipes while adhering to some unspoken ethical code is what made him chilling. Vivid characters, realistic characters, engaging characters, are a web of traits.

Depending on what works best for you, knowing their favorite color may or may not help you get to know them or make you interested in their story. I have no clue what my best friend's favorite color is but I can tell you what she'd do if she was robbed, I can list the values she tries to instill in her children, and I also can immediately tell you what her greatest regret in life is. See what I mean?

For an exercise think of someone you know well (a best friend, a significant other, etc) then list their traits without categorizing them as good or bad. You may get a list that reads: bites nails, loves animals, argumentative, loyal, sensitive about their height, talkative, trusting, moves lips when they read, generous, etc. No matter what you come up with it will not be one dimensional.

Now picture a time you've seen this person under stress or in pursuit of a goal. How have they reacted? Which traits came to the surface? Which ones receded? You'll start to see the complexity of an individual from a solid example.

Maybe try this for a few people you are close to and once you get warmed up try it with one of your characters. See them and their details, the subtle aspects that make them human, both frail and strong, happy and sad, champions and defeated. Once you get that...they start breathing on their own.

Hope this helps!

Nadja

[DavidZahir]

Of necessity, this will be a very personal account.

My background being theatrical, I first approach character pretty much as an actor. In regards playing Jacques in As You Like It or Goldberg in The Birthday Party or Stephen Undershaft in Major Barbara, what I looked for was a set of "telling details." For example, one thing that always helped me was to find the way a character stood--ramrod straight, poised like a cat, a deliberate (or unintended) slouch, etc. From that a great deal could proceed, including the way he would look at others, the way he'd cross the room or precisely he might threaten another character. But just adding details was not enough. They need above all to impact the character's actions. I never bothered to figure out what Stephen liked to have for breakfast, but learning what might make him unbend (much of it involving finally meeting and making a decision about his infamous father) proved hugely useful.

This later carried over into a period when I and some friends were playing a lot of LARPs (Live Action Role Playing). We each developed character sheets, spelling out in terms of number assigned to traits precisely what this person was supposed to be like. My "masterpiece" at this time involved precisely a matter of those numbers. I wanted to make him a leader, something whom others would naturally follow. But as part of his character I deliberately gave him no points in "Intimidation" whatsoever. Thus I was barred from making effective threats or inspiring fear in others. But in actual interaction, he/I began to wield far more authority than ever I'd imagined. Here was someone who literally led by example--but more importantly, one who responded to other characters in a very personal way and thus created a solid impression. He words came to carry immense weight, and with a few words he literally wrecked the plans of several other characters.

Moving forward, I was involved for five years with a "virtual series" online in which a staff collaborated on episodes with a season-long story arc. In the fourth season, I was instrumental in creating the "Big Bad" that year, but in this case we were examining a storyline which pitted Good VS Good. Our Big Bad was a Big Good who happened to be acting in opposition to our heroes. That fact was something we wished to keep ambiguous as far as the audience went. But I ended up writing the first several scenes with the character, which established his voice so completely that for most of the other episodes I had to go in and rewrite his dialogue. Fellow staff writers asked me to put together an essay on his "voice" so that by season's end they too could writes scenes that felt true (initially, others were writing him as stereotypically "villainous" i.e. scheming, ruthless, taking pleasure in deceit, dismissive of others' concerns, etc.).

All of this sounds like a bit of self-praise (and is) but my main point is how the details of this man's life and character translated into his words and actions: His way of encouraging doubt in those working with him on the same project--not because he didn't believe in what they were doing, but for the sake of caution. The precise way he would speak, telling as much of the truth as he dared but no more. The way he would make instant decisions, yet hold off sometimes because he didn't know enough. Or the way he never begrudged anyone praise, simply accepted praise on his own behalf, and the ever-so-slightly wicked sense of humor that kept peaking out.

Most recently, working on a totally original set of characters the whole host of details created for them was specifically to fuel (even if subtly) what they would say and do amongst each other. To give a concrete example, Lillian is a girl who fell totally in love at age twelve and almost seven years later remains both in love and lust with the same person. Since this was a plot point, I extrapolated from there. Anyone so governed by their emotions it seemed to me would be a Pisces (regardless of what anyone thinks of astrology, it remains an excellent description of personality types and interactions). Likewise, I decided that--although still a virgin--the idea and mechanics of physical love would have few mysteries to her. Thus her pursuit of her love interest remains in some ways unencumbered (please note the emphasis). Which in turn led me to realizing her parents were physically very demonstrative to each other, at least in private. Lillian, I realized, was a bit of a voyeur but had also grown up with an image of marriage that seemed almost too-good-to-be-true. In other words, her standards for a romantic relationship tends to make her timid, despite knowing what she wants. She has a lot to live up to. This leads in turn to realizing something about her relationship with her cousin/best friend, who is far more overtly aggressive and unilateral in her actions. She is the one who tends to drag Lillian into adventures, into action--being less fearful simply because she has fewer cares (or at least thinks she can tap dance her way out of trouble).

So between these two, apart from their actions, their voices are quite different. One says little, limiting herself to fairly straightforward statements and questions. The other makes suggestions, gets into arguments, cajoles and tempts as well as begging and bargaining.

Generally. The two have rubbed off on each other over the years, after all.

That is a peak at my own process, offered for whatever it might be worth.:Soapbox:

[Zara Ravenwood]

"I would recommend taking some acting classes to help you develop your characters. Or if you have any friends who act, have them help you set up some improv scenes. When you are in the moment, and thinking like the character, it all comes out. You don't have to think, "What would my character do?" You already know, because you become the character doing it."

I agree Acting class has helped me learn so much about witting- like others have said It all about what the MC'd (or any C's) want and who or what is in the way.

[ruckeriii]

If you develop characters enough, you really do start to feel like they are real people, and propelling the story forward. It can be great, and it can be annoying, because sometimes you feel like you are not in control of your own story. And, it's very possible to write well developed characters without this happening, so it is not the only way to tell you're doing it right.


Me control the story? I just write down what I see in my head. Why? Because I want to know what happens next. Actually I have very little say in what my MC and characters do. I had one girl who I thought would be a love interest for my MC and she turned out to a bitchy lost sister! I mean the girl seems to live to make his life miserable. What can I do she’s his sister?


Mason

[Rhys Cordelle]

I personally prefer to have my characters interview eachother rather than have me do it. It's a great way to get a strong indication of who's going to get along and who won't. The most useful and enjoyable interviews are when you sit a character down with their antagonist.

On top of questioning eachother about their hopes, fears, goals, etc. I find it very useful to have them target questions around the theme of the book, because then you really learn how that character is going to illustrate the theme in their actions.

The interviews are not simply back and forth dialogue either. Include body language. If someone says something that makes the interviewers blood boil then let it turn into an argument if that's where it needs to go. These interviews most likely couldn't happen within the novel itself, but how the characters react to eachothers answers should tell you a lot about how your novel is going to play out when these characters interact.

[Pyrohawk]

Army men... any of you kiddies know what those are?

What male person doesn't know...and played with army men as a child? That is a sad little boy. Though I suppose the advancement of video games even in my lifetime has been incredible so there may be kids who don't anymore...

At any rate..... This is just my two cents, how I develop my characters. I stress much less about my characters than I do my plot. My plots tend to get confusing.

I take my characters from lots of sources. Usually a character in my story starts off as a character from something I read...or more likely, multiple characters. Then I take all those characters and force them togethor in to one, adjust here, trim here, embellish here, etc. I also sometimes take real life people and include them in the story in the same manner. In fact both my protagonists of my WIP are combinations of real people and fictional characters. Ok....so now you have your character. But it doesn't end there!
Characters must grow with the story. Take your outline character and put him in the story, put him in the action and get him moving. Then watch what he does. Sometimes you find that parts of your outline get rejected because they don't fit the actions your having the character do. Things clash or just won't seem right to you...this is your character growing...let him grow, change the charcater until he is satisfied. Eventually, when the work is finished, you have a character who is finally "real".

And if your like me. Often by the time I am finished, even I can't see the resemblances between my character and his initial inspiration.

[motormind]

What male person doesn't know...and played with army men as a child?


Hey now, don't be sexist. I played with them too.


Often by the time I am finished, even I can't see the resemblances between my character and his initial inspiration.

In my view, to "build" intriguing characters you have to be intriguing yourself; in the end, all characters in your story are you in one way or the other.

[Pyrohawk]

Hey now, don't be sexist. I played with them too.



In my view, to "build" intriguing characters you have to be intriguing yourself; in the end, all characters in your story are you in one way or the other.


Sorry! Yes many girls played with them as well. But I would be more suspicious of a guy who didn't than a girl who didn.t I wouldn't trust em...;)

Yup, I agree. I also notice how my personal character comes out in some of my characters at time. Especially my MC. I think this is probably because....call it taboo if you want....when I daydream I often do so in first person, same when I read. As in, I AM the main character and I am having the adventure.

[motormind]

Sorry! Yes many girls played with them as well. But I would be more suspicious of a guy who didn't than a girl who didn.t I wouldn't trust em...;)


My little brother loved to play with dolls. As a matter of fact, he'd always get into fights with my little sister over who plays with what doll (they're twins, see). There's nothing untrustworthy about my brother and I love both my siblings to pieces, although I am admittedly closer to my sister.

And before you ask: no, my brother's not gay.


Yup, I agree. I also notice how my personal character comes out in some of my characters at time. Especially my MC. I think this is probably because....call it taboo if you want....when I daydream I often do so in first person, same when I read. As in, I AM the main character and I am having the adventure.

Colorful authors often make for colorful characters. But also demure writers can come up with an interesting cast, when they manage to "split" up their personality and spread it across the characters.

[Pyrohawk]

My little brother loved to play with dolls. As a matter of fact, he'd always get into fights with my little sister over who plays with what doll (they're twins, see). There's nothing untrustworthy about my brother and I love both my siblings to pieces, although I am admittedly closer to my sister.

And before you ask: no, my brother's not gay.
.

I can remember playing with dolls on more than one occassion. Playing with dolls counts the same as army men (and in fact I often used them as such:D ). What I mean is the kids nowadays who have never learned how to use their imagination and just play video games or watch TV instead. Thats sad.

Your painting me as a bad guy here... I was just joking...:flag:

[lucidzfl]

My little brother loved to play with dolls. As a matter of fact, he'd always get into fights with my little sister over who plays with what doll (they're twins, see). There's nothing untrustworthy about my brother and I love both my siblings to pieces, although I am admittedly closer to my sister.

And before you ask: no, my brother's not gay.



Colorful authors often make for colorful characters. But also demure writers can come up with an interesting cast, when they manage to "split" up their personality and spread it across the characters.

I always have a little something of me in EVERY one of my characters.

Now, fwiw, I do not always tell people WHAT part of me is in that character ;)

There are some dark ,horrible places in my mind, that I would never admit to anyone, but imo, being able to channel that evil into a character (3 dimensional of course) is almost like therapy.

I think thats why I sleep so much better at night on the days that I write...

[jasonleeward]

All characters need to have 'character' in some form and it's in conveying their traits and personalities to the reader that will make them become more personable. Building a character, like a plotline, takes effort and time. Just as the writer has grown through the years as a person, so, too, must the character develop over weeks and months. It's then that each character (hopefully) will speak with their own voice and actions that separate them from any other in the novel.