How far is 'too far' for a 'defining' character trait?

[Naruzeldamaster]

Not every character needs a 'defining' trait (especially not a stereotype) but the use of the word 'defining' alone makes me wonder about HOW it defines them.
Like, say a character has 'the drunk of the group' as their defining trait. There are multiple ways to write drunkards, and multiple personalities.

There's a particular series of games I like, that often goes quite comical with a characters 'defining' trait. Sometimes it's good/well written and the character ends up better, sometimes the character is quite hated for said defining trait. And by comical I mean the kind of extremes that you wouldn't really see in real life.

Normal character: I hate bugs, they're gross.
Fire Emblem Character (more than a slight exaggeration, well...sometimes, occasionally it IS this serious): I hate bugs, bugs are the devil, this one bug murdered my mom.
In both cases, the character hates bugs, but the way Fire Emblem's writers write this kind of thing, the entire character revolves around it, to the point where the character not bringing up X thing seems OUT of character, even if it's not.

 

[Queshire]

When it comes to cartoons there's a common piece of advice. I'd say it's about as common as "show, don't tell." It should be possible to tell who a character is just from their silhouette. Think of the Simpsons or Family Guy; even as just a shadow each of their main characters are recognizable at a glance.

Of course we don't deal in a visual medium, but the idea is the same. Defining traits help make a character recognizable.

Now, there's various things to keep in mind when it comes to a defining trait and how exaggerated they may or may not be.

Off the top of my head some such things include;

1) Number of characters.
2) How much screen or page time the character gets.
3) Target audience of the work
4) General tone of the work.

To use an example consider Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

First off, the tone of the story as a whole has a certain level of the fantastical to it. It's also aimed at a generally younger audience. each of the kids get their own scene displaying their suitably karmic fall, but they are introduced in rather rapid succession and there's a fair number of kids to begin with. Each option works pretty well with having one single trait the character revolves around which is pretty much what we see in the story.

 

[Prince of Spires]

There is a big difference here between side characters and main characters when it comes to defining traits.

For side characters, especially minor ones, it's absolutely fine to have a single defining trait. How extreme you make that trait depends on what the story demands I guess. Usually they're fairly subtle. J.K. Rowling is pretty good at this. If you read her descriptions of secondary characters, she almost always mentions a single specific trait to describe them. Which makes it easy for the reader to remember who they are. Same with Queshire 's example, though in a way that influences the story more than Rowling's character descriptions do.

For main characters, or even important side characters, I think having an extreme, single defining trait can create a flat character. If a main character wants to rescue his daughter, and that is all he wants to do, then the character becomes very predictable and one dimensional. However, if a character has to chose between rescuing his daughter two chapters down the line, and help a friend, and the reader doesn't know which he will pick and why, then you're creating tension, character depth and the opportunity for growth.

A main character can't be all about hating bugs (in adult stories at least), but it can play a big role in their character.

 

[Devor]

The thing here is, I feel like what you're describing is more of a schtick or a gimmick than a trait. Okay, it's silly when the character is obsessed with how much they hate bugs.... but what if instead of bugs, it's titans? Or demons? Or vampires? Suddenly it's a real struggle, and the trait can have an arc when their best friend becomes one. That's a big difference.

When it comes to doing these defining traits well, though, I feel there's two ends to a spectrum, which can exemplified with Harry Potter on one end, and Game of Thrones on the other.

Reading through Game of Thrones, every character feels like they have a tight personality profile bible written out for them. Tyrion is the clever dwarf with deep family issues, who can be brutal but not quite evil, and as a Lannister he always repays his debts. Other characters follow the same pattern: The profiles are lengthy, unique, detailed... and strictly adhered to.

Harry Potter, on the other hand, also has some defining traits, yet it feels like you can tag most character profiles (maybe not Voldemort) with the phrase "....but still, like, a normal person." The traits are softer, looser, more general. Even if Ron is usually the kind of mean one, and Hermione is usually the smart one, they can sometimes seem to swap - there are times where Hermione is mean or Ron does something smart. And there are plenty of times where Luna talks about things that have nothing to do with Natsworts or whatever. That's how most people are.

And I think that difference is one that most authors should really learn. Most real people have real personalities that are looser and hard to define. But it's also those extreme ones, done well, that can be the most fascinating and fresh.

And to be clear, it's completely fair to mix it up. Moby Dick was told from the POV of Ishmael, a reasonably normal person, instead of Captain Ahab, with the tightly adhered to unique profile. An Ahab POV would've given an entirely different feel to the book.

 

[skip.knox]

A trait becomes defining only with time. This means you as the author need to find ways for the character to behave in a certain way, at appropriate times, such that after a while, the reader goes "oh yeah, that's ABC for sure." Readers aren't going to recognize a trait until they've seen it a few times.

Someone coming to Sherlock Holmes for the very first time might read a passage in which Holmes infers something seemingly out of the blue. Read a few more Holmes stories and the reader begins to understand this is characteristic of Holmes. That happens only because Doyle was a masterful storyteller and knew when and how to use that "defining character trait."

 

[Naruzeldamaster]

A trait becomes defining only with time. This means you as the author need to find ways for the character to behave in a certain way, at appropriate times, such that after a while, the reader goes "oh yeah, that's ABC for sure." Readers aren't going to recognize a trait until they've seen it a few times.

Someone coming to Sherlock Holmes for the very first time might read a passage in which Holmes infers something seemingly out of the blue. Read a few more Holmes stories and the reader begins to understand this is characteristic of Holmes. That happens only because Doyle was a masterful storyteller and knew when and how to use that "defining character trait."

That's kind of what I'm trying with the male lead of this story. I want the reader to deduce that he has OCD, without it being a particularly important part of the narrative, if at all possible I'd like it to not be (directly) brought up at all. But through observing his actions/reactions (especially through his POV) people who know people with it, or deal with it themselves can be like 'oooh, that's what's going on'

 

[skip.knox]

I'm curious. You don't want a particular trait to be important to the story, yet you want the reader to recognize its presence. So, then I notice it and I go, oh look the character has this unimportant trait that I recognize. Why do you want to sideline the trait? Why not make it important?

 

[Naruzeldamaster]

I'm curious. You don't want a particular trait to be important to the story, yet you want the reader to recognize its presence. So, then I notice it and I go, oh look the character has this unimportant trait that I recognize. Why do you want to sideline the trait? Why not make it important?

Mostly because the few times I've seen OCD used as a PLOT important fact, it's almost always done poorly. Or it's depicted in overly stereotype-y ways. It's an important part of the character and overcoming it is part of his own personal development. But it's not important to the plot itself. I want to use it as a medium to explain why he is the way he is, but not much else, if that makes sense. I don't want it to come off as an unimportant trait, more that his OCD doesn't hinder his ability to accomplish what the plot requires him to do. (of course, it does throw a monkey wrench into the romantic side of things, but that's the whole point of enemies to lovers)

 

[skip.knox]

Ah. You want to do it well rather than poorly. We're all in favor of that! It seems a worthwhile aim regardless of whether or not that trait is important to the plot (or to the character). The obvious example that springs to my mind is the TV show Monk. That one is very much about a character who is forced to deal with a disorderly world but who has a rather severe case of OCD.

 

[Naruzeldamaster]

Ah. You want to do it well rather than poorly. We're all in favor of that! It seems a worthwhile aim regardless of whether or not that trait is important to the plot (or to the character). The obvious example that springs to my mind is the TV show Monk. That one is very much about a character who is forced to deal with a disorderly world but who has a rather severe case of OCD.

Ooh, I'll have to give that a watch sometime.

It's kind of the same way with the female lead, although it's not OCD, I want her to have this big 'arrogance' energy but she's not like, mean/bully-ish, she's a mischievous fox who's been through 300 years of personal growth (she isn't even the oldest Kitsune in the story, though that's a given) and I want to depict that side of her but not do so in a way that impacts her negatively. Her being a Kitsune is an excuse to do it cause you know, fox people, but I am hoping to do it in a way that makes her interesting. (Her arrogance is kind of 'earned' in a way, ya know, like Legolas, but she's smart enough to reign it in when people chide her) I think I did a decent job in the first chapter of depicting how she thinks people see her but this chapter is going to be somewhat tricky because both characters are kind of unreliable narrators.

 

[Rexenm]

There are different traits to adventure, drama, and action series. But, it revolves around the hero. Sometimes a reader will use their own voice for a hero, and make all surrounding characters interesting with traits like their own fellows. It is easy to have the world against you, but it is easy to help out. That is what is different about the imagination verses the cold hard facts.

 

[Prince of Spires]

One thing to be aware of is that readers might be waiting for the character's personality traits to play a role in the story. It's basicaly Chekhov's gun (If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there.) A story isn't a depiction of real life, it's a shadow of real life with all the boring bits taken out. If you give your character OCD and repeatedly point it out to the reader, then it probably should play some role in the story.

As an example, I recently watched The Lincoln Lawyer on Netflix (the series one, not the movie). In that, the main character defends an IT guy from a murder charge for most of the first season. The IT guy is shown to have OCD (or at least something like it). He's constantly rearanging pens so they exactly line up, and has all these ticks. And not only that, they actively focussed on it, pointing us to him doing it on multiple occasions. As a viewer, I kept waiting for that fact to matter into the plot. It never did.

This just left me feeling confused. There was this big build-up which then never materialized. They hung a gun on the wall, and not only did it not shoot, but the fact that it didn't shoot didn't matter at all.

That is not to say that you can't have a character with OCD (or any other personality trait), or that it must always lead to a big reveal. However, make sure you don't give expectations to your reader that you aren't going to meet.

 

[Naruzeldamaster]

One thing to be aware of is that readers might be waiting for the character's personality traits to play a role in the story. It's basicaly Chekhov's gun (If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there.) A story isn't a depiction of real life, it's a shadow of real life with all the boring bits taken out. If you give your character OCD and repeatedly point it out to the reader, then it probably should play some role in the story.

As an example, I recently watched The Lincoln Lawyer on Netflix (the series one, not the movie). In that, the main character defends an IT guy from a murder charge for most of the first season. The IT guy is shown to have OCD (or at least something like it). He's constantly rearanging pens so they exactly line up, and has all these ticks. And not only that, they actively focussed on it, pointing us to him doing it on multiple occasions. As a viewer, I kept waiting for that fact to matter into the plot. It never did.

This just left me feeling confused. There was this big build-up which then never materialized. They hung a gun on the wall, and not only did it not shoot, but the fact that it didn't shoot didn't matter at all.

That is not to say that you can't have a character with OCD (or any other personality trait), or that it must always lead to a big reveal. However, make sure you don't give expectations to your reader that you aren't going to meet.

The chekov's gun thing is kind of part of the concern.

My plan is to not directly state that he has OCD (it's undiagnosed but at this point he's learned to cope with it) but to have the female lead fascinated by but perplexed by his quirks. (sort of a Holmes/Watson dynamic, if it helps) Even though the revelation is just that the female lead finds him cute because of his OCD (more so that she's attracted to how he's growing to overcome it) I feel like that's a decent enough use for it. She fixates on all the little things he does cause it reminds her of how some Kitsune are, once she realizes what it is while he's agonizing over his troubles, it clicks.

I'd still like to avoid directly stating it's ocd as if it's super important though. Kinda goes back to the thing where I dislike when character A says they have 'x' and the other characters react like 'whaaaat omg everything makes sense now' as if it's an earthshattering reveal. I get that revealing 'x' is a whole plot point, but I don't feel like it should be such an unfathomable thing.

 

[skip.knox]

Try for a moment to throw out the label. No OCD. Forget that.

This character has certain behaviors. Do any of these behaviors matter? In what way, to whom, at at what point in the story do they matter? The female doesn't find his oCD attractive, she finds certain behaviors attractive. Same as anyone does.

I think if you push aside the label, you might see your way to more story development.

 

[Naruzeldamaster]

Try for a moment to throw out the label. No OCD. Forget that.

This character has certain behaviors. Do any of these behaviors matter? In what way, to whom, at at what point in the story do they matter? The female doesn't find his oCD attractive, she finds certain behaviors attractive. Same as anyone does.

I think if you push aside the label, you might see your way to more story development.

That's kind of what I want to do, I want to put aside that he has 'ocd' (but let's say this could literally be any defining trait, for the sake of discussion) but still depict him in a way that yes, someone with the condition can see he has it. If it were any other label I would treat it the same, just that this character came to me as someone who has it, but it doesn't hinder his abilities.

Granted, his ocd is a part of his character arch, and it's a medium to explain why he is how he is. But that's about as far as I want to take it (or any other defining trait I might use, if that helps)

 

[Prince of Spires]

Most characters have some quirks. It's what defines them and separates them from others. That's completely fine. It can be that they fidget with their ring when they're nervous, or that they speak in a certain way, or that they mentally comment on people's outfits, or whatever. Nothing wrong with that, and it doesn't have to impact the story (much). So in that sense, having an OCD character where the OCD part doesn't play a story role is fine. As long as it's just a quirk. Just having it where another character thinks it's cute is no problem. Though make sure that they're consistent in their behavior, and not just do it when it's convenient for the author.

 

[Naruzeldamaster]

Most characters have some quirks. It's what defines them and separates them from others. That's completely fine. It can be that they fidget with their ring when they're nervous, or that they speak in a certain way, or that they mentally comment on people's outfits, or whatever. Nothing wrong with that, and it doesn't have to impact the story (much). So in that sense, having an OCD character where the OCD part doesn't play a story role is fine. As long as it's just a quirk. Just having it where another character thinks it's cute is no problem. Though make sure that they're consistent in their behavior, and not just do it when it's convenient for the author.

Yeah with this pair I'm sort of trying to go for a Watson / Holmes dynamic, she's often perplexed by his personality and quirks (she doesn't figure out it's OCD until later) but she finds the fact that he's able to overcome them and still be as skilled as he is in his field attractive/cute. I'm planning for his character flaws to really get under her skin (I imagine Watson and Holmes didn't exactly get along at first either) and some of those quirks are what drives her insane at first, but the whole plot for both of them romantic wise is figuring out that the things they see as 'problems' with the other's personality aren't problems at all. (or rather that they're making mountains out of molehills and being confused as to why they find them attractive)