# Character Development Formula



## Jabrosky (Jan 28, 2012)

After reflecting on my writing, I noticed that a lot of the stories I've written have the following formula: the main characters make fatal mistakes that get them into trouble and spend the rest of the story trying to compensate for those mistakes and changing for the better. It's my belief that if protagonists are flawed, those flaws should cause problems for them and they need to learn from those problems and redeem themselves in order to be sympathetic. Exactly when in a story characters make their big mistakes varies, but I like to put the mistakes early in the story to get the characters' flaws out of the way so they can appeal to readers for the rest of the story's length.

I've found this formula very helpful in the past, but is it the only way one can tell a story?


----------



## sashamerideth (Jan 28, 2012)

I actually have a character that starts off fairly innocent but turns bad, and not by accident. His friends from when he was a goodie try to turn him back. This isn't the only way to tell a story, there are hundreds.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Jan 28, 2012)

I don't really have my characters make mistakes, rather I give them goals or desires or problems to solve. Then, when different characters interact, things happen because of how their personalities react to each other, and how their goals coincide or conflict.

If I have a theme to all of this, I suppose its "people getting to know each other." Most of my main characters start out alone, either literally or in a spiritual/emotional sense, and then find themselves in unfamiliar territory. As they try to deal with this, they gain friends and enemies and this causes them to grow as characters.

Anyway, I think this is mostly a matter of personal style - having a particular way to develop your characters is okay, because we all have our own personal approach to it.


----------



## Graham Irwin (Jan 29, 2012)

A story needs an obstacle that needs to be overcome for it to be engaging and rewarding to the reader. How that is defined is very different between authors and stories. In some stories the obstacle is faced by a character, who may be getting a new job, or removing a sword from a stone, or learning to love. The arc of the character of the story revolves around the obstacle, be it physical, emotional, spiritual, anything. If the story is about how grass grows, the obstacle would be how to avoid the dangers that would kill the grass, how to water it, how to make it grow. If the story were about cooking, the obstacle is the meal. It needn't be life-threatening, the obstacle, but something needs to _happen_ in a story, and that implies a before and an after, and the something in-between must change the before to the after. That something is the crux of your story. 

I need to go to sleep.  

As far as your tendencies, I like a story where the character is fallible. Those are usually my favorite heroes!

That's my two cents!


----------



## JCFarnham (Jan 30, 2012)

Following on fairly neatly from what Graham said, if your stories start with a flawed character you should probably have the story be about them over coming that flaw. Just like how you wouldn't start a book with romance, end it with a war, and never conclude the romance. 

Actually I'm going to make an amendment to my above point: "if you stories start with a *fallible* character you should probably have the story be about them *dealing with *that flaw."


----------



## Voldermort (Jan 31, 2012)

sashamerideth said:


> This isn't the only way to tell a story, there are hundreds.



This is one of those statements that sounds like common sense, but is so untrue as to be dangerous.

Yours and the OPs are the same story, if you look at it from the change POV.

You're both playing with change.

You've just got different archetypes.


----------



## sashamerideth (Jan 31, 2012)

Voldermort said:
			
		

> This is one of those statements that sounds like common sense, but is so untrue as to be dangerous.
> 
> Yours and the OPs are the same story, if you look at it from the change POV.
> 
> ...



I thought you had learned your lesson last time you insulted not only me, but a moderator as well with this tact. Please reconsider your approach to this forum.


----------



## Voldermort (Jan 31, 2012)

sashamerideth said:


> I thought you had learned your lesson last time you insulted not only me, but a moderator as well with this tact. Please reconsider your approach to this forum.



I never intend to insult.

Just stating an opinion.

How is that insulting?


----------



## sashamerideth (Jan 31, 2012)

Voldermort said:
			
		

> I never intend to insult.
> 
> Just stating an opinion.
> 
> How is that insulting?



I will leave that decision to the moderators.

Sent from my NOVO7PALADIN using Forum Runner


----------



## Voldermort (Jan 31, 2012)

sashamerideth said:


> I will leave that decision to the moderators.
> 
> Sent from my NOVO7PALADIN using Forum Runner



If the roles were reversed and you had said it to me, I would interpret it as the trigger for an interesting conversation. The fun's in the verbal sparring.

That's how I see it. I certainly don't see it as insulting.


----------



## sashamerideth (Jan 31, 2012)

Voldermort said:
			
		

> If the roles were reversed and you had said it to me, I would interpret it as the trigger for an interesting conversation. The fun's in the verbal sparring.
> 
> That's how I see it. I certainly don't see it as insulting.



Past behavior Voldie, or have you forgotten that you have already insulted me, and others directly, and never provided an apology. I also asked you via private message to leave me alone.  I am making that same request, publicly this time.

Sent from my NOVO7PALADIN using Forum Runner


----------



## Arcturus (Jan 31, 2012)

In my writing I tend to have two characters who are complete opposites, but somehow play up each other's strong/weak points in the process. It's not so much as a formula than it is a downfall in my writing. The reason why I consider it a downfall for myself is because in order for this to work, these characters essentially have to act like watered down versions of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.


----------



## Voldermort (Jan 31, 2012)

sashamerideth said:


> Past behavior Voldie, or have you forgotten that you have already insulted me, and others directly, and never provided an apology. I also asked you via private message to leave me alone.  I am making that same request, publicly this time.
> 
> Sent from my NOVO7PALADIN using Forum Runner



I do not recall insulting you or anyone else.

You do not have the right to tell me to avoid a conversation which you may be a part of.


----------



## Voldermort (Jan 31, 2012)

Arcturus said:


> In my writing I tend to have two characters who are complete opposites, but somehow play up each other's strong/weak points in the process. It's not so much as a formula than it is a downfall in my writing. The reason why I consider it a downfall for myself is because in order for this to work, these characters essentially have to act like watered down versions of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.



I don't see this as a downfall at all. I don't see why they have to be watered down. Each helps the other overcome flaws.


----------



## grahamguitarman (Feb 1, 2012)

sashamerideth said:


> I thought you had learned your lesson last time you insulted not only me, but a moderator as well with this tact. Please reconsider your approach to this forum.


No offense mate, but I cant see the personal insult here,  I may not agree with his point of view, but I saw no personal attack there either.

But anyway to answer his comment, while its true that most stories are about change, you could just as easily say that most stories are about people doing things.  In fact you might as well just say a story has a beginning, a middle and an end, and that is all there is to it.  Such sweeping generalisations serve no real practical purpose other than to allow some academic to classify the basic structure of a story.  

I'm an artist and I teach art to private students. If I told them that painting is just taking a brush and wiping paint onto a canvas, while it would be technically true as a description of painting, it would be a poor way to teach the art of painting.

I need to show them the nuances of colour mixing, how to capture light and shade, how to compose and balance a picture and so on.  There are so many variable to take into account it's unbelievable.  and that is just for one type of picture, add in to the equation the  different types of subject matter (or even the different types of face) and it becomes an endless subject.  As much as I would love to be able to teach my students to paint in a handful of lessons, it just isn't possible.

Coming back to writing, the same things apply.  Although all stories are about a beginning a middle and an end with some kind of change taking place, to say the endless variations that can exist in that framework don't matter is over simplification.  There really are a hundred ways to tell a story, and a thousand nuances within that.  

If we really were all writing the same story then we might as well stop writing now and go back to our day jobs!

Its the individuality of each writer in both ideas and writing style that makes each story unique and rewarding to read.

Edit:
I've just realised I walked into some kind of private feud - I'm staying out of this one!!


----------



## Arcturus (Feb 2, 2012)

Voldermort said:


> I don't see this as a downfall at all. I don't see why they have to be watered down. Each helps the other overcome flaws.



I guess it isn't a "downfall" so much as it is an inconvenience.  I only say inconvenience because most of my characters are basically attached by the hip.  Now if they were actually attached by the hip, that would be a different story...


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Feb 2, 2012)

Arcturus said:


> I guess it isn't a "downfall" so much as it is an inconvenience.  I only say inconvenience because most of my characters are basically attached by the hip.  Now if they were actually attached by the hip, that would be a different story...



One's a mage. One's a warrior. They're attached at the hip—literally! Watch hijinks ensue as these conjoined heroes bumble and stumble their way to victory over the forces of darkness!


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Feb 2, 2012)

Voldermort said:


> This is one of those statements that sounds like common sense, but is so untrue as to be dangerous.
> 
> Yours and the OPs are the same story, if you look at it from the change POV.
> 
> ...



While I don't see how this could come across as insulting, I also don't quite undestand what you are trying to say with it.

How is it untrue that there are more then one way to approach character development, and in what way is thinking so dangerous?


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Feb 2, 2012)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> While I don't see how this could come across as insulting, I also don't quite undestand what you are trying to say with it.
> 
> How is it untrue that there are more then one way to approach character development, and in what way is thinking so dangerous?



He's right in that it _is_ possible to reduce almost all stories to a point where you can say they're the same: "If your characters don't change, it's probably not a good story." But saying that _The Godfather_ and _There's Something About Mary_ are basically the same story is not particularly useful or helpful. There's a lot more to a story than just making sure that there's change involved.


----------



## Voldermort (Feb 5, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> He's right in that it _is_ possible to reduce almost all stories to a point where you can say they're the same: "If your characters don't change, it's probably not a good story." But saying that _The Godfather_ and _There's Something About Mary_ are basically the same story is not particularly useful or helpful. There's a lot more to a story than just making sure that there's change involved.



It's much, much, much, much deeper than that. 

The process of change - how it's executed - in both those stories, is the same.

So much so that both those stories are a change process with simply different archetypes laid on top.

Understanding that is very useful and helpful.

Even the archetypes don't change very much. In both those stories, there is a young boy who grows up.

Saying that both those movies are the same and trying to figure out how that may be is one of the top five useful things in the writing discipline. Perhaps the number one.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Feb 5, 2012)

Voldermort said:


> It's much, much, much, much deeper than that.
> 
> The process of change - how it's executed - in both those stories, is the same.
> 
> ...



Michael Corleone doesn't want to get involved in his family's business. But when his father dies and the family is in peril, he can't resist and is sucked in, giving in to the urge for revenge.

Ted Stroehmann is selfish and lacks confidence. He tries to be someone he's not in order to win over Mary, but when that doesn't work, he realizes that it's self-sacrifice and compassion that will get him what he wants.

I just don't see how those are "the same." Maybe you could give a point-by-point explanation. Just saying "they're the same" doesn't really explain _how_ they're the same. What are the parallels between Michael Corleone and Ted Stroehmann?


----------



## grahamguitarman (Feb 5, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Michael Corleone doesn't want to get involved in his family's business. But when his father dies and the family is in peril, he can't resist and is sucked in, giving in to the urge for revenge.
> 
> Ted Stroehmann is selfish and lacks confidence. He tries to be someone he's not in order to win over Mary, but when that doesn't work, he realizes that it's self-sacrifice and compassion that will get him what he wants.
> 
> I just don't see how those are "the same." Maybe you could give a point-by-point explanation. Just saying "they're the same" doesn't really explain _how_ they're the same. What are the parallels between Michael Corleone and Ted Stroehmann?



Couldn't agree more, every story has some kind of change, but there are many kinds of change to choose from


----------

