Q about Characters

BethS said:

I remember Spirograph! And it's not a bad analogy.

Click to expand...

Me too, and I agree.

I wouldn't say my characters ever surprise me, exactly (for instance, I've never had a decent, sympathetic character who has turned into a kitten murderer), but I'm far more pantser than plotter, so stories and character arcs can and do change as I create them. I seem to be incapable of deciding what needs to happen until I'm in the middle of writing it, which makes getting started a real chore for me. I generally get fonder and more invested in my characters as my subconscious tweaks them and I begin to discover who they really are. At the beginning of a new story, I'm always kind of "meh" about them.

Star Wars is a good example. Who saw that little innocent child from Episode One pod racing becoming one of the biggest villains in the galaxy? Well, we all did because we knew Anakin was going to fall to the Dark Side. I like how it turned the Chosen One prophecy on its head as well. Characters should be their own real people and real people do not respond to certain events the same way as oneself might--when I say certain events, I mean adversity--not everyone handles adversity the same. I wouldn't become a drug kingpin because I was a high school chemistry teacher diagnosed with cancer, but that didn't stop Walter White, and it made for interesting television.

Your characters should be their own people, with their own goals, hopes and dreams. I wouldn't want my characters handling situations in the same fashion as I the writer would; that would make for some pretty bad reading as I live a banal existence. Yeah, it has to be believable, but it needs to be interesting. And people don't always do what you expect them to do. Your best friend, whom you trust more than anyone in the world, could start a nasty rumor behind your back. That's why it's fun to figure out so and so was the murderer when you was pretty sure it was the creepy butler, behaving suspiciously.

Harlequin said:

Not to descend into philosophy, but determinism basically precludes people behaving out of character. Everything has a cause--therefore everything which occurs is just an effect.

I don't mean that to start a discussion (especially when I've worded it so badly) but just to provide context on my comment.

Click to expand...

Even if you believe in a perfectly logical Newtonian universe where everything operates like clockwork (and I think stuff like quantum physics throws a wrench into this) I'm not sure how well this applies to characters or people on a real life, practical level, because no one can ever have 100% perfect knowledge of anyone, even themselves. Even if I've known an individual my entire life, I can't predict their behavior with perfect accuracy; even if I may have a general feel for how they'll probably react in a given situation, they will sometimes surprise me. And that's a good thing, because otherwise human relationships would get pretty dull.

Occasionally I do something impulsive that surprises myself. Sure, there's still some reason why I did it, even if it's the equivalent of a neurological hiccup, and that reason might be theoretically knowable to someone with a god's-eye view, but no one has a god's eye view. Even psychologists who have studied the human mind their entire lives still have a wide range of different and contradictory theories about how the mind works, how identity forms, how a "decision" happens in the brain and what factors influence it, etc.

Real human beings behave in ways which are frequently unpredictable to other real human beings, so characters that have some element of unpredictability tend to feel more multi-dimensional and realistic. At the same time, "real people are unpredictable" isn't a catchall excuse for any character action, because it's easy for readers to spot behavior that's happening for the convenience of the plot. In real life, people do dumb things all the time, but someone who does a dumb thing in a horror movie (i.e. going down the stairs alone and unarmed into the dark basement to investigate the spooky noises, then getting gotten by the monster) evokes an eyeroll and a "oh come on" response...not because we always expect actual people to be 100% logical, but because people being illogical in horror movies often happens in specific, contrived ways that feel artificial.

I'm mostly just thinking out loud here. But I think, like most things, it's a balancing act. It's important to have a sense of a character's core motivations and driving forces, but also important to remember that there are countless things influencing a person's behavior at any given time, and occasionally having a character do something "uncharacteristic" can help simulate that.

The Otter said:

... and occasionally having a character do something "uncharacteristic" can help simulate that.

Click to expand...

Here's something to ponder. How many times/ how often/ how seriously does a character (or a person, for that matter) have to do something "uncharacteristic" before it stops being uncharacteristic for them?

With my background in Engineering I tend to overthink, and (borderline) over plan my writing. I certainly do plan novels, but do less prep work on short stories.

On longer works I like to map out the story line to sort of get my arms around the scope of the project I am considering. Am I gearing up for a short story, novella, novel, or a series of novels? The answer to that question lets me know the amount of preparation I need to do – character development, twists and turns in the plot, who knows what and when, etc.

The most important question for me to answer while outlining is whether the story is interesting enough to me personally that I would be willing to invest my time in it.

Tazlima said:

Here's something to ponder. How many times/ how often/ how seriously does a character (or a person, for that matter) have to do something "uncharacteristic" before it stops being uncharacteristic for them?

Click to expand...

Until the reader stops believing in the original characteristic that was presented.

And that was my intentionally vague answer for the day.

In reference to Harlequin and The Otter's debate about predictability in character behavior:

If we look from a scientific perspective (which is the wrong path to take here, in my opinion,) people's choices are hardly random. It's true that theories like Quantum Mechanics predict probabilistic (non-deterministic) outcomes, but only on very small scales. If I throw a rock, it'll certainly hit the ground, and if certain neurons fire in your brain, you will say "Rell's right!"

In principle, human behavior is based on sufficiently predictable processes, that we can essentially call it deterministic. Of course, this requires somewhat of a god's-view to figure out, along with some very hard calculations--which are basically infeasible.

But I think this is the wrong perspective to take here. When writing a story, you don't describe the arrangement of atoms, nor you preset equations and their impact on the objects in the tale. You showcase a psychology, giving the reader whatever you want them to know, keeping the rest to yourself. Sure, if I were God, and had an impossible super-computer, the fact that Jill betrayed Jack wouldn't surprise me. But I'm not, and I didn't know that he beat her when they were little. I didn't know this was all part of her plan.

My point, (and I might have gotten somewhat carried away,) is that philosophical or scientific debates about predictability and determinism have little to do with storytelling, in regard to surprising character behavior. I truly believe that it's all about controlling the flow of information, and justifying reveals and character-moments.

As a reader, all I ask is that whatever happens or whatever a character does is credible (to me) within the story parameters.

When writing I have the same underlying aim.

If, for some readers, it doesn't work - so be it.

Bufty said:

As a reader, all I ask is that whatever happens or whatever a character does is credible (to me) within the story parameters.

When writing I have the same underlying aim.

If, for some readers, it doesn't work - so be it.

Click to expand...

This is a good point. Using the Walter White example not too many high school chemistry teachers would become a meth dealer after being diagnosed with cancer to leave his family with some money. This is out of the norm in reality but it's probably not unordinary in crime drama. Readers' expectation of characters' behavior can be influenced by the genre itself.

Questioner said:

which means characters will have to grow and change. How exactly do you do this? How do you change the character's voice as they develop, so that it's still "connected" to that specific character?

Click to expand...

In essence, take them on a journey along which they change their belief.

When I was first writing stories, I had a lot of trouble - I think it was from forcing things, but - one thing that would happen is I'd start with a 'feel' for a character (I make up the story as I write it - generally labeled 'pantser') and by the time I'd gone several chapters the character felt like a different person - sometimes even my idea of their physical characteristics had changed. That's different from characters doing something unexpected. Perhaps other writers have encountered this? Sharing fwiw, in case someone reading is having a similar problem.

It took a while and for me the biggest factor was to stop thinking ahead with the story, think only about what had happened so far, and focus on the sentence I was currently writing about the actions/thoughts/experiences that were currently happening in the scene. But it took me a while to get there (Including a recent break from writing of 14 months).

tylermarab1987 said:

Using the Walter White example not too many high school chemistry teachers would become a meth dealer after being diagnosed with cancer to leave his family with some money.

Click to expand...

Good point, but it's also a good point that the drama was so compelling because there were reasons behind every moment, every decision, in it. Everything made sense. You won't succeed very often with things happening out of randomness.

caw

relletyrots said:

In reference to Harlequin and The Otter's debate about predictability in character behavior:

If we look from a scientific perspective (which is the wrong path to take here, in my opinion,) people's choices are hardly random. It's true that theories like Quantum Mechanics predict probabilistic (non-deterministic) outcomes, but only on very small scales. If I throw a rock, it'll certainly hit the ground, and if certain neurons fire in your brain, you will say "Rell's right!"

In principle, human behavior is based on sufficiently predictable processes, that we can essentially call it deterministic. Of course, this requires somewhat of a god's-view to figure out, along with some very hard calculations--which are basically infeasible.

But I think this is the wrong perspective to take here. When writing a story, you don't describe the arrangement of atoms, nor you preset equations and their impact on the objects in the tale. You showcase a psychology, giving the reader whatever you want them to know, keeping the rest to yourself. Sure, if I were God, and had an impossible super-computer, the fact that Jill betrayed Jack wouldn't surprise me. But I'm not, and I didn't know that he beat her when they were little. I didn't know this was all part of her plan.

My point, (and I might have gotten somewhat carried away,) is that philosophical or scientific debates about predictability and determinism have little to do with storytelling, in regard to surprising character behavior. I truly believe that it's all about controlling the flow of information, and justifying reveals and character-moments.

Click to expand...

Not for me. I want to explore precisely those aspects. It is my worldview--and the implications of whether er have culpability in the absence of free will interests me.

The principle remains the same in any case. If my character's raison d'être is saving orphans, then the classic villain trap of "save orphans or your aged mum" will inevitably result in him saving the orphans.

To make my character save his mum instead requires enormous and extenuating external pressure. Having him change priority without sufficient reason or explanation or build up, is bad writing. Equally, showing someone forced into a choice they wouldn't normally make is still compelling even if not "surprising".

blacbird said:

Good point, but it's also a good point that the drama was so compelling because there were reasons behind every moment, every decision, in it. Everything made sense. You won't succeed very often with things happening out of randomness.

Click to expand...

Breaking Bad is one of my favorite shows for that reason. It's brilliant from a psychology of evil (if you want to use that word) standpoint, because it shows every small, incremental step of his path to becoming a cold-blooded killer and keeps him relatable the whole time, even when his actions are horrifying and inexcusable.

At the same time, you could argue that there are plenty of moments he could have chosen differently and simply didn't, because his drive to get whatever he wanted was--in that moment, at least--stronger than the forces holding him back. You see the delicate balancing act and how easily it can tip one way or the other. You see the potential for good in him as well as evil. That's what makes it a tragedy (and damn good drama).

blacbird said:

Good point, but it's also a good point that the drama was so compelling because there were reasons behind every moment, every decision, in it. Everything made sense. You won't succeed very often with things happening out of randomness.

caw

Click to expand...

That's what I've been saying about character development. Characters should have their own goals, hopes, and dreams. Their thoughts, actions, and interactions with other characters to achieve their objectives and how they change through the course of this is the character development. Sometimes in response to adversity they may do something unexpected. Their action wasn't random, it was something they decided to do differently because they were in a situation they've never been in.

Human behavior is predictable: if a behavior is reinforced it's likely to be continued; if it's punished it's likely not to be continued. Yeah, human behavior is predictable for the most part, but people still do unexpected things sometimes. I asked this question 5 years ago on yahoo answers. https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20121107114412AAbbzng

Yeah, there was a reason behind his behavior, but it still was unexpected to me. If I was able to predict a total stranger would insult me for no reason I would have avoided him. If you could have predicted your husband would cheat on you, you've probably wouldn't have married him, but nevertheless you discover he's been sleeping with another man for two years--you were not even able to predict he was gay. I don't think many of us here foresaw Tiger Woods being a horndog. Even your children are not always going to do what you expect out of them. They're going to make mistakes. That doesn't mean their action was totally random, just not what you expected of them.

Further still, in an extreme and tragic example, if human behavior was 100% predictable, and people sometimes don't do unexpected things, Tom Cruise and the pre crime division would have shown up to arrest Stephen Paddock (a 64 year old multimillionaire with no criminal background or history of mental illness) before he massacred 60 people and wounded 500 in Las Vegas. We're still trying to figure out his motive. But that's an extreme abnormal case.

We all here can write a story using the same prompt, the same plot, the same main character, yet our stories are probably going to be different. The main character's behavior in all our stories, written with the same prompt, is probably not going line up perfectly together.