Sympathetic Characters

[danr62]

It's been a few weeks since I saw this video, but I also think Sanderson said that even if your protaganist starts out as reactive in terms of the plot, you can make him proactive regarding other things to make him more sympathetic. For instance, maybe your protag has a girl he likes and approaches her for a date. Or maybe he's a farmer and he's proactive about getting his chores done. I think that his point was that it's easier to like a protag who has at least some proactivity, even in the beggining.

Of course, that's not to say you can't have a coming of age or character transformation story that starts with a character that is completely passive, but then you need to work harder to get the reader to like him for different reasons.

Everything said here applies equally to female characters. I just used "him" for ease.

 

[JCFarnham]

It's been a few weeks since I saw this video, but I also think Sanderson said that even if your protaganist starts out as reactive in terms of the plot, you can make him proactive regarding other things to make him more sympathetic. For instance, maybe your protag has a girl he likes and approaches her for a date. Or maybe he's a farmer and he's proactive about getting his chores done. I think that his point was that it's easier to like a protag who has at least some proactivity, even in the beggining.

Of course, that's not to say you can't have a coming of age or character transformation story that starts with a character that is completely passive, but then you need to work harder to get the reader to like him for different reasons.

Everything said here applies equally to female characters. I just used "him" for ease.

Precisely

Brandon was picking up on points that play into the human psychology of liking. We all love rooting for the underdog (okay some won't, but they're just weird heh heh). We like to be friends with people who have plenty of other friends (eg, Sherlock is fairly unlikeable, but a sensible bloke like Watson likes him. He can't be all that bad right?).

It's all about giving the character that thing we can latch onto, whether they're the protagonist, or the antagonist, or some where in between.

 

[Addison]

I read somewhere, I forget where, that most beginner writers muddle over characters because they're both trying not to put too much of themselves into the hero or trying to make the hero someone that all readers can relate to. There will always be something of the author in the protagonist. And just because not everyone can relate to being adopted or such doesn't mean a writer can't use that for their protagonist. If it works for the story and fits in their mind then go with it. Start with the fresh idea, write down and second thoughts on a separate them and look them over when the first draft is completely done.

 

[JCFarnham]

Now see, I've always heard that a beginner mistake is to actually put too much of yourself into a manuscript. I believe it was Mary Robinette Kowal in fact. Her annecdote is she was writing a story and created two cat characters because "she had two cats" rather than because "they were strictly necessary". [In the end she made them necessary through edits, but she's since learned otherwise]

I think the only thing we can definitively say is... Do it just right.

What "just right" is, I haven't the foggiest clue.

 

[Ireth]

I've come to realize lately that, quite unintentionally, one of my characters is basically my "spear counterpart". He was originally created to be a foil for another character, but it turns out that his personality is very much like mine -- quite laid-back, not very talkative, content with the familiar and wary of the unknown. I'm sure it's not a problem because it wasn't deliberate, but it's still interesting.

 

[Zero Angel]

If you are going to put yourself into your characters, I hope you have multiple personality disorder! Or at least take only certain facets of your personality into them.

If the whole character reads like you in print, then there might be some issues, but if you are only recognizing some aspects of yourself in the character then that is probably fine. You can probably find something in almost anyone that reminds you of yourself.

 

[The Dark One]

What exactly is likeable though? The main character of my recently finished novel (1st person POV) is a total scumbag who gets up to all kinds of evil and is utterly contemptuous of all around him.

And yet, everyone loves him.

Of course, I want people to like him but what is it about such a bastard that makes people enjoy reading him. It's a bit like reading Francis Begbie in IW's books - evil, violent psychopath, but hilarious the way Welsh handles him.

I suspect in my character's case, people enjoy his intelligence and evil sense of humour. They also wind up feeling sorry for him because after all the evil stuff he does he cops the worst (and ironically undeserved) come-uppance imaginable.

 

[danr62]

Yes, but I'm guessing he's proactive. He's probably very competent, too. The sense of humor makes him relatable and his unjust comeuppance makes him an underdog, so you've already hit several of Sanderson's qualifications there.

 

[robertbevan]

i just read this thread all the way through. good stuff to think about.

Could you elaborate on why you say this? To me, if a story features unsympathetic characters then there is no reason to care about the outcome of the plot.

one of the common criticisims of mybook was that my characters are unlikable, and don't have a lot of depth to them. i won't make any arguments for depth. it's true, depth of character is certainly something my book lacks. and i won't argue much for likability. i love them, but if more than one person is telling me that they are unlikable (out of not a very large pool of readers), then how can i argue with that?

in fact, one of our fellow scribes here reviewed my book, and went as far as to say that he didn't care if the characters lived or died... but he still gave it four stars.

so i guess being funny helps.



i'm going to go through the list with the characters from my book, a recently self published title. and i'm going to go through it again with the first thomas covenant book, which was traditionally published and has a pretty solid following. (but which i personally hated.)


my book:

• they have similarities to you or people you know [of]. yes.
• they face problems [underdog syndrome]. yes.
• they are consistant. yes (maybe a little too consistant.)
• they have depth [and/or quirks]. depth, not so much. quirks, yeah.
• you might aspire to be them. ha... probably not.
• they have some sort of expertise. does swearing count?
• they are PROACTIVE. they spend most of the book being reactive, but they have a couple of proactive moments.

• they have similarities to you or people you know [of]. no. if i knew anyone like thomas covenant, i'd stay away.
• they face problems [underdog syndrome]. yes.
• they are consistant. yes (but this is certainly a bad thing)
• they have depth [and/or quirks]. people seem to think so. can you measure depth in units of whining?
• you might aspire to be them. no no no no no.
• they have some sort of expertise. whining? raping?
• they are PROACTIVE. not at all. in fact, i don't remember him doing much of anything at all except for going along for the ride and bitching about it the whole time.
  
  
  unlocking what it is that made the thomas covenant books successful might be the higgs boson of literature.

 

[JCFarnham]

You can't underestimate the power of Underdog Syndrome. It's said to be a massive underlying psychological factor of humanity. Of course like in most sciences it's hotly debated.

The reason people love Covenant I'd say, is because he constantly gets in shit, and people perhaps morbidly want to watch and see what he gets into next. We as a species are fancinated for better or worse by people and things that are different.

There's the ticket.

I'd also imagine that the writing is compelling and the marketing is top notch.

 

[Wynnara]

You can't underestimate the power of Underdog Syndrome. It's said to be a massive underlying psychological factor of humanity. Of course like in most sciences it's hotly debated.

I'd definitely agree with this. In my earlier drafts of my novel, I tried to have my protagonist, Oren, as much more closed off... more of a 'cool guy'... and have the reader get to know him as they go. The response I got back from my beta readers was that his weasel-y sidekick/partner was leaving more of an impression than my protagonist--definitely not a good thing. So, in addition to opening him up a bit, I very deliberately have the opening pages of the novel involve someone trying to beat the stuffing out of him. It opens the novel with action, but I also think it helps to very quickly build empathy for this character... and it seems to have paid off since, without changing much in the subsequent pages, people now seem to love Oren.

As for me...

1. they have similarities to you or people you know [of].
2. they face problems [underdog syndrome].
3. they are consistant.
4. they have depth [and/or quirks].
5. you might aspire to be them.
6. they have some sort of expertise.
7. they are PROACTIVE.


1. I would say I've given Oren traits that I'm familiar with in myself but then made them more extreme... things like being sensitive to how others perceive me and desire to just create "the plan" and then execute it perfectly.
2. Somedays Oren just can't win no matter what he does... plus people want to beat him up.
3. Definitely... if anything Oren can be a pretty closed-minded character and it takes a lot to change his views.
4. He has a backstory that strongly figures into why he's so sensitive to what people think about him as well as his intense desire to change those preconceptions
5. Yup, he's just cool... well, to everyone except my heroine.
6. Also yes
7. Very much so, although primarily in areas that benefit him... because he is someone who doesn't want to rock the boat or get involved in the bigger picture, getting him to be proactive in those areas is a big part of his arc


I also want to add I was really surprised by the feedback from my beta readers for a character that I had perceived to be very un-likeable. Oren's partner, Tam, is this cowardly, haughty, whiny, little weasel but people genuinely seem to love him. I don't think you could build a whole story around a character like that, but because he too ends up in a lot of underdog situations, even though the way he reacts to the world is kind of unflattering, there is still this desire to learn more about this character.

 

[BWFoster78]

So, in addition to opening him up a bit, I very deliberately have the opening pages of the novel involve someone trying to beat the stuffing out of him.

Wynnara,

I found your post to be most helpful. So much so that I'm considering changing a scene it chapter 2 to show my protagonist getting his butt beat.

It also brings back to my attention a conversation Ankari and I had. He had me read some of his work, and I mentioned that I found the little sister more interesting than the protagonist but couldn't determine why. This may be exactly it. She was the powerless one while he was the one defending her.

Very interesting thoughts.

Thanks!

 

[danr62]

Here's another article I just read that looks at it from different perspective:

The Secret Weapon of Crafting Effective Heroes

 

[JCFarnham]

Hmmm, I'd say it looks at exactly the same ends but instead of laying it as Brandon did it couches it in "sermon". What Brandon was doing was telling you howhe would do it, instead of simply saying do it. You know?

Of course, which ever way helps you to understand the concept. Either way you look at it, if you trully understand it your characters will me better off for it. Nothing wrong with that

 

[Steerpike]

I'm still not convinced you 'need' empathy for the character herself. It can't hurt, I suppose, but you can build a story around a character that doesn't allow for much reader empathy.

 

[The Dark One]

I'm still not convinced you 'need' empathy for the character herself. It can't hurt, I suppose, but you can build a story around a character that doesn't allow for much reader empathy.

The main character of my recently finished novel is a complete bastard. If people empathise with him it's only in a furtive, guilty sort of way because he's funny and charming despite his arrogance and evil.

Readers certainly like him, but I sincerely doubt whether they empathise with him.

I wouldn't want to meet anyone who did.

 

[FireBird]

As a reader I don't care about sympathy or empathy, I care about whether the character is interesting or not. Does the character make me want to turn the next page and read on to the end of the book? I have hated the MC throoughout the book and still rushed to the end because he was interesting.

There is also something I find that might just be even more important. No matter what I'm reading, I have to understand why the character is the way they are. I want to be able to know for a fact that when they make a choice I understand why they did it. Likewise, I can't stand to see them struggle over a choice that is obvious for the character that has been developed so far.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

There is also something I find that might just be even more important. No matter what I'm reading, I have to understand why the character is the way they are. I want to be able to know for a fact that when they make a choice I understand why they did it.

I would argue that this would be part of designing a sympathetic character. It helps you identify, even in a small way, just by understanding.

There are many ways to create sympathy between a character & a reader. Often, the best ones are very subtle.