What is character?

"Character is who you are when no one is watching." ~ various

An old adage, that actually plays well on screen and in print. What is your character DOING when no one else is around? Pay attention to those moments, because that's what reveals character to the reader. What they do when someone IS watching - reveals how they care about their reputation. The two sometimes conflict in interesting characters.

Yes, the reader has to take them at face value, using the collected information within the story to build the three dimensions (hopefully) in their head. As a writer, the character can be more; you can have a bio and backstory not present in the work to ground the character and have as a guide to what the character might say or do.

JBwell said:

Wondering what people think is the best way to think about character?

I kind of think of it as no more than the collected actions/thoughts/whatever of the person as they feature in the story - ie they do that, that and that, and think that, that, and that, and if it ain't in the story it's not part of the character.

Click to expand...

That isn't character, that is plot. Character is the way your cast reacts to the events [plot] in the story.

JBwell said:

I kind of think of it as no more than the collected actions/thoughts/whatever of the person as they feature in the story - ie they do that, that and that, and think that, that, and that, and if it ain't in the story it's not part of the character.

Click to expand...

That doesn't work for me. I have to know them as well as I know my family and best friends.

If it limit it only to those things that will show up in the story, they end up flat and wooden. I'd have to push them around with a stick, because they won't get up and walk about on their own.

In fact, wanting to know more about my characters and their adventures is what keeps me banging away on the keyboard for hours and months on end.

JBwell said:

Interesting comments. I like the idea of thinking about how a character acts when no-one else is watching.

Gothicangel, I wonder what you think about a character who has a great sense of humour but in the plot has no opportunity to use this. Do you think they can be said to have a sense of humour by anyone other than the writer?

Click to expand...

It's an interesting question.

When I create a character, I don't think along the lines of listing attributes. When I started writing my WIP, I didn't know my MC had a very sardonic sense of humour. I thought he was very bitter, but he laughs and smiles a lot.

I would say if he has a great sense of humour, let him show it.

Dr.Gonzo said:

Yes, the reader has to take them at face value, using the collected information within the story to build the three dimensions (hopefully) in their head. As a writer, the character can be more; you can have a bio and backstory not present in the work to ground the character and have as a guide to what the character might say or do.

Click to expand...

I have to second this. And say it's the physical stuff -- if a reader takes away nothing else, they'll remember something physical about the character. And it's the emotional stuff and how they interact with other characters. Personality. Thinking. Feelings. Passions. Etc...

My characters are a conglomeration of every experience they have had previous to now. Ofc, those don't all go in the book But they do inform his actions in the book.

JBwell said:

Yes, you are probably right. But do you think there is a danger that if you know your characters too well they become less flexible in their actions? For example, if a character is nervous then their nerves have to be always taken into account. Whereas if you have a character who has simply done A, B and C then one has more flexibility to decide how they might act when it comes to D (if that makes any sense...).

Click to expand...

We may be arguing in violent agreement here.

How do you get to know a real person? You observe them, listen to them, talk to them and observe their response, watch how they interact with other people. You create a three-dimensional image in your head of how that person thinks until soon, you can usually predict their actions.

Early in the story, when I know little about them, every new action has to be seen in light of how it fits in with their character so far. The character builds and takes on more definition. Their actions become constrained because you have a clearer picture of how they would react when new situations come along.

For example, if a character is dishonest in small ways at the beginning, it's more likely s/he'd go along with a truly evil scheme later. But if they're scrupulously honest, then getting them to participate in a great crime would require the greatest of threats and inducements.

Add to that the fact that real people occasionally do things completely out of whack with our vision of them. EG, the apparently contented housewife has an affair or runs away. This disconnect, when it happens in real life, is often profoundly disturbing to us.

But because we're writing fiction, it has to make sense, so there has to be a cause somewhere in their history. So you add that to what you know about them, too.

Basically, this is the same process you use when you get to know real people. You build up layers of knowledge about them until you can predict, or at least explain, how they'll react in new situations.

Building characters in this way works, but there are consequences:

1. Characterization is poor in the early chapters and they generally have to be rewritten in view of how the characters develop later.

2. When I work with an outline, I generally have to abandon it after a few chapters, because the original conception of the plot is no longer consistent with the growing characters.

JBwell said:

Yes, you are probably right. But do you think there is a danger that if you know your characters too well they become less flexible in their actions? For example, if a character is nervous then their nerves have to be always taken into account. Whereas if you have a character who has simply done A, B and C then one has more flexibility to decide how they might act when it comes to D (if that makes any sense...).

Click to expand...

I think less flexible is a good thing. For me, good characters are real people put on paper, and a character who is too flexible ceases to be real, and turns into Joe Superman. There's a place for such characters, but seldom in stories I want to read.

Real people get afraid, get nervous, have no clue what to do in this situation or that, and characters should be the same. The true hero is the character who manages to win despite nerves, despite not having a clue, despite no real experience that helps.

As a writer, I don't have a philosophy of character. I just do it. I pay attention to how people seem to be in real life, and I write the characters from my gut. I see them with an inner eye, and I describe what I see.

Were I a student in a literature class, I'd think analytically about the topic, but that kind of thinking can throw me off as a writer. To me, character has always seemed beyond study, unlike POV or how to get in and out of a flashback, or how to change sentence length in action scenes or some other technique matter. Character and humor are dangerous for me to get over-analytical about. YMMV.

I think I want to pick on semantics here:

Character (#1): A fictional person--unless you count setting as a "character".

Characteristics: Qualities that are physical, emotional, or mental.

Characterization: Depicting or describing a person, fictional or otherwise.

Character (#2): Here's the sense I want to pick on. From my perspective, character as a word has moral connotations. It's not just a collection of behaviors, attitudes, choices, etc. It has much more to do with where a person's moral compass is set, and relates to integrity or a lack thereof. The point about "when nobody's watching" comes closest--as in, what will someone do in a given moral dilemma?

This discussion is addressing the word in different ways, but it mostly seems to be centered on what I'd call characterization, and I'm not sure if the OP meant it that way, or not.

JBwell said:

Wondering what people think is the best way to think about character?

I kind of think of it as no more than the collected actions/thoughts/whatever of the person as they feature in the story - ie they do that, that and that, and think that, that, and that, and if it ain't in the story it's not part of the character.

Click to expand...

Look at it this way. Are you just a collection of actions and thoughts? Of course not. So why should your characters be?

I'm personally invested in most of my characters. I tend to create my characters based on the people in my life as well as those that have had a great impact in the past. I always start with a detailed outline of my character, from his/her name to favorite food, color, animal. I give them hopes, fears, dreams, even childhood memories. I usually don't even look at this outline after the third or fourth chapter because by then the character has taken on a life of his/her own. I go to that extreme to become invested in that character and while I may not look at it again what I created is always sitting there in the far reaches of my subconscious guiding my character in the work. I don't see my characters as anything less than my children. I create them, I raise them, I teach them, and then I set them free. Good luck and happy writing.

JBwell said:

I don't know, actions and thoughts has most of it covered for me!

Click to expand...

No secrets, flaws, hopes, dreams, fears, quirks unique to you or lies you tell yourself?

Possibly. Although it could be an idea to look deeper at yourself and therefore your characters rather than focusing on terms.

F. Scott Fitzgerald said "Character is action"

You really get to know a person through their actions. The guy you sit next to in French class might seem really nice, until you hear him making racist comments.

So I would say that character is action and perhaps the heart of characters is desire. They have to want things, they have to want to do things. People may not think about these things but characters do.