how to build intriguing characters

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.

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.

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.

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!!!

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.

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.

sandoz said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

maestrowork said:

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)?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

sandoz said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

azbikergirl said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

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?

reph said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Another suggestion

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.

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!!

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.

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.

Characters

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.

Flaws

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.