• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Making an interesting character

So, as we've all seen, there have been several threads about making a "sympathetic character" from a character that commits very unsympathetic acts. We have all read books where at least one interesting character isn't very sympathetic, yet we love that character anyways. Why? Because they are interesting.

Take a look at the Game Of Thrones Series. How many of these characters are truly sympathetic? Not many. I hate Littlefinger as a person, Stannis is most certainly not the Mannis (he's kind of a douche), all the Lannisters are jerk bags, and even the Starks are kind of tools. But I love reading about them because they are interesting. I can't feel for so many of them. Like Theon, I'm not all that sad he's been turned into Reek, he's a jerk and got what he deserved. But his motivations, his actions, his reasons for doing what he did were really interesting. I never liked him, but I wanted to follow him down his path to see where it leads. I can't wait for when all of Littlefinger's scheming bites him in the butt. I have no sympathy for him, but I want to follow him.

So, I think, we are asking the wrong questions when we ask if person who does a despicable act can be considered sympathetic. I believe the better question is whether we can make Despicable Character interesting.

What do you all think?
 
Hi,

I think we can make him interesting, but that doesn't necessarily make us want to love him. Not even like him. I think GOT does well because of a lot of other things than characters. There's the plot and the drama fora start. This thing is essentially a soap opera where black is the new drama. You don't feel for the characters - at least not in my case. You weep for them as they all take their slow and painful dive into moral decay, darkness and suffering. There's also the world build which is quite fascinating.

Personally I stopped reading at the third book because the relentless death and suffering got to me - but have now watched season four on the telly. It's better because in part the actors are older than the children in the books and so it's easier to take it when they are raped and murdered and whatever else.

Also like many I suspect, I keep hoping that somebody in this morbid and sadistic world will finally shine and there will be a true hero come forth who might actually survive and achieve something good.

Cheers, Greg.
 

T.Allen.Smith

Staff
Moderator
Sympathy in writing means only that the reader creates a connection with the character. It doesn't mean we actually sympathize with a character's dilemma.

Take your Littlefinger example. We don't truly have sympathy for him, unless you're empathic toward the bullying he experienced as a child. However, he is an expert manipulator. Portraying a character as an expert in some skill or field is one way to create a sympathetic character. People respect expertise. That is one layer that creates a connection for the reader. It also is one of the reasons he is interesting.
 
Last edited:

X Equestris

Maester
I'd agree that this is probably the question people should be asking. Interesting characters are a big part of what keeps a reader turning pages. For example, I really enjoyed the new Star Wars novel about Tarkin. There's no denying he is ruthless and ambitious, and the book doesn't try to make him out as a good guy. And the hero antagonists of the novel aren't much better. Yet it still works, because Tarkin is an interesting and compelling character. So I say if you don't want and need your audience to sympathize with a character and/or see them as a hero, making them interesting can work just as well.
 

ThinkerX

Myth Weaver
I read the following advice one time (paraphrased):

If you want to make your character compelling, make that character suffer.

That's one approach. There are others.

1 - Make the character physically different: unusually large or small for his/her race. Work that into the story action.

2 - Give the character a quirk - obsessive/compulsive, expertise in some obscure craft or knowledge, something like that.

3 - Interesting family - current or past. One of the characters ancestors was a notorious pirate or outlaw, or he/she has an uncle that vanished years ago under questionable circumstances, or the character either consults or is consulted by family members best described as eccentric.


Just for starter's.
 

skip.knox

toujours gai, archie
Moderator
For me, it's about questions. A character must be interesting, but the character must be in motion--that is, the author must keep raising questions that make the reader want to know, what's next? What is that character going to do now? This ties to the character arc Helen mentioned.

Like so many things that appear simple when stated in plain words, it turns out to be extremely difficult to do this. For authors, or at least for this author, the difficulty stems from the fact that I don't always know what's going to be intriguing to the reader. All I can do is first, make sure I'm raising questions and second, make them interesting to me. If I overlook either of those, the character is sure to fall flat.

I have a hundred ways to guarantee failure, btw. I have a grand total of ... *checks calculator* ... zero ways to guarantee success.
 

Caged Maiden

Staff
Article Team
I think some of my favorite characters weren't great because they were heroes--they were blunderers, thieves, liars, and so on. BUt they had a goal, they had a way, and though they ****ed up superbly sometimes, they were fun to watch. I've only scratched that surface in my own writing, because heroes are easier to write, but I think I always aim for morally gray characters who have flaws and suffer, because that's life and that's what I like. I pull them through the shredders until they're all kinds of beat up, until they have almost no hope left, and then I give them some sort of happy ending. I think for me, that's the sort of story I like best. So no, I don't think a character has to be a "good guy", but I think he's got to have goals, motivations, and be generally relatable. I'm not a thief or assassin, but gods, I love to read about them, because it's a fun adventure. Much better than a boring, normal person. In fact, Harry Potter is pretty normal, and I loved him, well...at least his stories. I didn't so much love Harry, as I loved his situations and the mysteries he and his friends had to solve.
 

WooHooMan

Auror
The heart of a character is motivation. Motivated characters are engaging. A character becoming sympathetic or interesting or whatever often comes as a result of them being motivated. Characters who aren't motivated to some degree tend to be boring or uninteresting even if they're morally sound or relatable.
People like the characters in Game of Thrones because they all tend to be very motivated: they want something and they're motivated to get the thing they want. Adversity in the story serves to motivate them further.
Have you gotten that motivation is important yet. I feel like I haven't stressed motivation enough.

I mean there are other things you can give a character that will make a reader go "well, that's neat. I'll keep reading to see what that's about" - stuff like abilities/powers or a backstory or a tool/weapon - but things like that tend to be pretty superficial.

But yeah, other than that, just read the previous posts. Those should answer your query.
 
Last edited:
I always aim for morally gray characters who have flaws and suffer, because that's life and that's what I like. I pull them through the shredders until they're all kinds of beat up, until they have almost no hope left, and then I give them some sort of happy ending. I think for me, that's the sort of story I like best.

I think I'm mostly opposite here - there's nothing I love more than a bittersweet ending. To me, that's what screams realistic. As they say in Moulin Rouge "And in the end should someone die?" - Yes. It's a natural part of life so yes they should.
Not everything is peachy in life & I think more so than gray characters, I prefer dark events. Growing up reading Shakespeare ingrained in me that at very least something tragic should happen in the end.

Guy finally gets girl - one of them (unexpectedly) dies . Girl struggles whole time not to lose the house / family farm, wins lottery and dies (family is saved but obviously she'll never be able to enjoy it with them), good guys finally win the war, a week later a volcano erupts and entombs them all, noblewoman finally wins the throne back but can't continue the bloodline as she discovers she's barren, guy decides to go to the police & confess to his long list of crimes but is given death penalty for the one crime he didn't commit, etc.

Morally gray characters are fine but I also don't mind more black & white ones- as long as the ending isn't necessarily good guy wins without some sort of suffering (if not for the MC, for his/her friends & family) ... but come to think of it, that might just be the Catholic in me (suffering=potential but not guarantee of redemption)... or it could just be that I'm a troll. I like to see characters suffer tehehehe ... but really. Happy endings are overrated. There are ways to write a fulfilling ending without being too predictable and because I don't write Romance, I usually try to find them. (Not that there's anything wrong with Romance ... it's just generally less acceptable to have guy & girl spend the whole book trying to get together only to never have it come to fruition or pull the rug out ... I feel like a happy ending is much more expected by Romance readers).
 
The heart of a character is motivation. Motivated characters are engaging. A character becoming sympathetic or interesting or whatever often comes as a result of them being motivated. Characters who aren't motivated to some degree tend to be boring or uninteresting even if they're morally sound or relatable.

That's true ... thanks to Netflix I've been (re)watching the novela Teresa - she's by no means a good person. She basically uses everyone so she can get ahead in life. "Ser o no ser ... yo soy" [If I have to choose between being somebody or being a nobody ... I'm going to be a somebody] all for the sake of escaping "la maldita pobreza" [damned poverty]. Teresa's embarrassed of her parents (her father is a mechanic & the mother takes in other people's laundry), she's always trying to prevent her rich friends & coworkers from meeting them (unless it works to her advantage of course). She doesn't understand why her parents, BF, & neighbors are so quick to loan money to one another or give to charity when they could save it & pull themselves out of poverty. Really she's not a good person but 90% of the drama comes from us trying to figure just how far she's willing to go (lying, manipulating, scheming,) in order to get what she wants (to be a rich & successful Mexican lawyer). Her mother is always questioning - a que cuesta? (what's the cost?)... it's pretty clear the cost isn't hard work ... it's her soul. If ever there was such a thing, Teresa is delightfully evil. Hell, the theme song is "Esa Hembra es Mala" ... to roughly translate a line for you - it goes "she used to be my friend until she robbed me of everything/the one that I loved- all for (her) ambition"(Esa mujer fue mi amiga malditosea aquel dia, robo lo que mas queria y todo por ambicion).


Is Teresa a good character? Hell no! She's friggin evil and so are 1/2 the other characters but it's fun to watch because we know everyone's motivations, hers especially, but we're constantly surprised by the lengths she's willing to go - all for her ambition. Sometimes we see her almost be good until something reminds her of her damned poverty - her motivation is flipped back on & the drama continues.

Seriously though ... if any writer struggles to maintain tension or write a character that we love to hate, this is the first thing I'd recommend.

I think you're right in that motivation can be key.
This example came to mind because they keep including parts where she literally weighs a symbol of her love (spoiler:for Mariano) vs a symbol of wealth (a pearl necklace, a cell phone etc.). In addition to the amusing catch phrases it's a great filming technique that literally shows us her internal struggles, the deliberation, and the finally the decision to continue w her ambitions...

I think in addition to motivation ... there must be options and choices (I guess whether they choose to stick w their morals or compromise them depends on the character & their motivations).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

WooHooMan

Auror
I think I'm mostly opposite here - there's nothing I love more than a bittersweet ending. To me, that's what screams realistic. As they say in Moulin Rouge "And in the end should someone die?" - Yes. It's a natural part of life so yes they should.

I guess it's all kind of a balancing act: circumstances can't be perfect but they can't be terrible just to give the characters some adversity or drama. Drama/bittersweet-ness needs to be earned.
For me, realism is "this cause has a logical, sensible effect". You can't just tack on tragedy or character flaws and say "now it's realistic".

Personally, my method is that all the important characters are fundamentally good but bad circumstances bring-out their less-than-ideal traits. Nothing makes for a better antagonist than circumstances. Whether they get a happy, sad or bittersweet ending depends on what they deserve.

Is Teresa a good character? Hell no! She's friggin evil and so are 1/2 the other characters but it's fun to watch because we know everyone's motivations, hers especially, but we're constantly surprised by the lengths she's willing to go - all for her ambition.

There's a reason why villain tend to be seen as interesting: they're motivated. Villains have to be since they tend to be the most overtly active participants in a story. "Villains act, heroes react".
 
I guess it's all kind of a balancing act: circumstances can't be perfect but they can't be terrible just to give the characters some adversity or drama. Drama/bittersweet-ness needs to be earned. For me, realism is "this cause has a logical, sensible effect". You can't just tack on tragedy or character flaws and say "now it's realistic".

Personally, my method is that all the important characters are fundamentally good but bad circumstances bring-out their less-than-ideal traits. Nothing makes for a better antagonist than circumstances. Whether they get a happy, sad or bittersweet ending depends on what they deserve.

Of course how you dole out the results will depend on which characters you want to "reward" and which you want to "punish". It also depends on the complexity of your story, the number of characters and the nature of your writing.

When I'm reading I want to experience a wide variety of emotions and when it comes to endings I prefer the same (if it fits the story). Of course happy endings are nice but they aren't the only way to go. Thus while I have a personal preference for an emotionally complex ending, I concede that you shouldn't force your writing to go in a direction that it doesn't naturally flow.

Whether you tend towards an ending that's uplifting, depressing, or both, it should never be tacked on the end. I guess for me a happy ending can feel a bit stiff like adding "and they all lived happily ever after". I prefer ends like that of Hunger Games [where she watches her children playing what was once a mass grave and the residual effects of her trauma]. IMO it's much more moving and raw than it would have been if it just ended with her watching 2.5 kids play beside a white picket fence.

In most cases the MC should live through to the end but every so often there's a story where (s)he (to paraphrase Tolkein) needs to die in a spectacular way (as with Beowulf's glorious death by dragon). If Beowulf lived to a ripe old age it just wouldn't be the same and likewise we'd have felt cheated if he died of a common cold or flu (cough ... Mozart ... cough).
Anyway - to me strictly happy endings seem too simple and easy. There doesn't have to be a huge death or tragedy in the end but when there is I usually won't complain.

I think this all speaks more of plot preferences though- rather than character development.
 
Top