# What is a "strong" character?



## Weaver (Jun 13, 2013)

What, in your view, makes for a strong character?  Is it different depending on if the character is male or female?  Are there things that would automatically make you see a character as weak, even if they had other traits that were typically strong ones? 

(I'm not elaborating on the questions.  I want your own opinions, not what anyone thinks _I_ want to hear.)


----------



## The Dark One (Jun 13, 2013)

A strong character is one the reader wants to read about. Eg, in a multiple POV setting, the strong characters are the ones the reader gets excited about whenever they reprise in the narrative.


----------



## Weaver (Jun 13, 2013)

The Dark One said:


> A strong character is one the reader wants to read about. Eg, in a multiple POV setting, the strong characters are the ones the reader gets excited about whenever they reprise in the narrative.



Could you specify?  I'm not asking about what makes for a good POV character; I'm asking what makes a particular character be viewed by the reader as a strong person.


----------



## The Dark One (Jun 13, 2013)

Surely the same things that make any person regard another as a strong person.

I thought you meant what makes a character strong within a particular story.


----------



## Penpilot (Jun 13, 2013)

When I boil it down, a strong character is just like a strong real person. They meet all the challenges that life gives them, and they may bend and even break sometimes, but their strength allows them to get up and try again regardless of failure or success.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Jun 14, 2013)

I've noticed that when the term is used by commentators--this is a strong character--rather than by authors--my character is strong--it tends to mean "multifaceted." Some "strong" characters actually begin as physically or spiritually weak, but they display a complex and interesting personality that changes somewhat over the course of the story.


----------



## The Dark One (Jun 14, 2013)

Putting the OP's post to one side, my idea of a strong character is, as I said originally, one who engages the reader's attention and enjoyment. For example, in the Hitchhikers books, I love Marvin. He's not in it all that much but every time he makes an entrance I'm 100% in the story with him. Obviously Arthur Dent is also a strong character but he's present most of the time, which requires a different type of strength, to keep us engaged. This is also where the character arc becomes important - less so for characters like Marvin. In fact, you don't want Marvin to change at all!

A brilliant example of character strength was (for me) in Shogun by James Clavell. Although, the brilliance was not so much located in any particular character as in all of the feudal Japanese. He introduces the western reader to a very alien mind (shared by all the Japanese characters) and just when you think you understand that mind and its motivations...Wham! Clavell hits you with something which is totally surprising and yet makes perfect sense. Breathtaking world-building and characterisation.


----------



## Chilari (Jun 14, 2013)

I would say a strong character is one with agency and complexity. The agency bit is about making decisions, owning mistakes and being active rather than passive. The complexity comes from having different faces to present to the world, different goals and motivations, different reasons for doing things.

On the activity/passivity side of things, I would say that it is possible for a victim of abuse to be a strong character with agency. One example I have heard of is a police officer who leads a team, makes arrests, is innovative in combatting and preventing crime, but when she goes home her husband is abusive and she passes off the bruises as the result of brushes with criminals rather than from her husband. She has agency in her professional life, and complexity in that she has two different approaches to life depending on who is present. She might have weakness in that she cannot or will not face up to her abusive husband, but as a character she is strong because there's more to her than being a victim of abuse, and there's more to her than being a police officer. She is both.


----------



## Mythopoet (Jun 14, 2013)

A strong character is a character that feels like a real person. No particular characteristics are necessary and there is an infinite amount of variety to draw from. A strong person is someone who tries, to the best of their ability in any given situation, to do the right thing rather than the easy thing.


----------



## Weaver (Jun 14, 2013)

The Dark One said:


> Surely the same things that make any person regard another as a strong person.



And what_ is _that?


----------



## Scribble (Jun 14, 2013)

Weaver said:


> And what_ is _that?



Differed for everyone, but at the core... determination in the face of challenges. We can admire Ghandi for remaining peaceful in the face of oppression, yet we can admire leaders of rebellions for doing the opposite in the same situation. They don't have to succeed out in the world, they can fail - we admire the person who wins the battle within themselves.


----------



## Telcontar (Jun 14, 2013)

I generally attribute one chief quality to every so-called "strong character:" Initiative.

"Agency" is another buzzword that means much the same thing. Strong characters are active, not passive. Things may happen to them, but they don't just accept their fate or quietly and uncomplainingly go along with misfortune. They act to change it. Everything else is just details of personality and situation - the important thing is that the character works towards bettering their own lot and/or the lot of those around them, no matter what gets thrown at them.


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Jun 14, 2013)

I have to agree - characters with agency, complexity, and I'll take it one step further.

Truth.

The character has to be true at all times.  I don't mean honest - most of my characters are not only unreliable narrators, they tend to lie to themselves most of the time, like we all do.  But their personalities must be what steers the plot, not the other way around.  In my mind, a character whose basic substance is malleable enough to serve the author's plot needs is not strong - they are merely props.  I like a character who calls the shots, changes the story, has truth and agency and complexity - those are the ones I want to write, and read.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 14, 2013)

> We admire the person who wins the battle within themselves.



It occurred to me that the battle they win might not necessarily end in the outcome we want, or one that matches our moral desires. They struggle and make a choice, sometimes the choice might be to fall. We might see that as a failure, but only because we are making a judgment. The character who choose to fight for something and then at the last minute, lets it all burn may infuriate us, but I think that could also be a _strong _character.


----------



## Spider (Jun 14, 2013)

I believe a strong character has to have a great deal of courage, and I don't mean the absence of fear. I mean the ability to act in the midst of fear. It can be fear of a tangible thing, an inner fear, fear of failure, etc. The important part is not giving up even when a situation seems hopeless, or when the odds are against the character.


----------



## Weaver (Jun 14, 2013)

Telcontar said:


> I generally attribute one chief quality to every so-called "strong character:" Initiative.
> 
> "Agency" is another buzzword that means much the same thing. Strong characters are active, not passive. Things may happen to them, but they don't just accept their fate or quietly and uncomplainingly go along with misfortune. They act to change it. Everything else is just details of personality and situation - the important thing is that the character works towards bettering their own lot and/or the lot of those around them, no matter what gets thrown at them.



Good answer.  And thank you for explaining "agency."

I was once told by a reader that the protagonist of one of my novels, contrary to what I or anyone else believed, was actually the character who 'always follows orders, doesn't make waves, never speaks his mind,' and doesn't change at all through the course of the story.  This... makes _no sense _to me, but the person who said this was at university studying literature, so he knew best.  (Sorry -- it's that weekly sarcasm quota thing again.)  He also said, in a different discussion, that 'there are no strong female characters in sci-fi and fantasy.'  (*waits for the outrage -- totally justified -- to die down*)  According to him, for a female character to be considered strong, she'd have to be in the military and never have sex -- the latter being especially important.  I never did get an explanation from him as to why he thought those were requirements.  (_Ohmigod!  Marleah kissed Geoffrey!  And she's a civilian!  And she's a girl, and girls are yucky and weak and stupid and besides, she's a telepath and everyone knows that people with psi talents are crazy..._  Sorry, don't know why that bit from W. R. Thompson's _Sideshow_ popped in.  Maybe because after a while, all stupidity starts to blur together.  Actually, Marleah isn't be the strongest character in the novel she's from -- she hasn't had the kind of life that pushes a person to be particularly strong -- but she's not a weak person, either.  It takes courage to go work with someone you know is going to try to keep you from doing your job, and it takes strength not to be overwhelmed by constant pressure from other people to be what they want you to be - or what they decided you are before they even met you -- even though doing so would cause irreparable damage to your own self.  But what do I know?  I'm just her author.)


----------



## Spider (Jun 14, 2013)

Scribble said:


> They struggle and make a choice, sometimes the choice might be to fall



I think it takes a strong character to make a choice that is difficult for them. For example, if the character chose to surrender a battle in order to preserve lives, he may not enjoy making that decision, but he would do it nonetheless for his men. That's strength. However, if he surrendered just to save his own skin, that might come off as weak.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 14, 2013)

Spider said:


> However, if he surrendered just to save his own skin, that might come off as weak.



I am getting into anti-hero territory, but I'll ask you to humor me.  

Let's say the struggle the character has is between his desire for surviving and holding to his duty to his kinsmen. Let's say he feels he never really belonged, and the duty he was forced into, he never believed in. It was the shame of betrayal that he felt, and he fought his fear of being branded a traitor. At the end, he overcomes his fear of being branded a traitor, and he hands the secret plans to the enemy. He knows he will pay the price of the guilt of those deaths, but he accepts that burden.

Now, I wouldn't want this guy on my team, but I have a hard time considering him a weak character. He's strong, it just happens that his strength lies in a direction that is opposite to most people's.


----------



## Spider (Jun 14, 2013)

Scribble said:


> I am getting into anti-hero territory, but I'll ask you to humor me.
> 
> Let's say the struggle the character has is between his desire for surviving and holding to his duty to his kinsmen. Let's say he feels he never really belonged, and the duty he was forced into, he never believed in. It was the shame of betrayal that he felt, and he fought his fear of being branded a traitor. At the end, he overcomes his fear of being branded a traitor, and he hands the secret plans to the enemy. He knows he will pay the price of the guilt of those deaths, but he accepts that burden.
> 
> Now, I wouldn't want this guy on my team, but I have a hard time considering him a weak character. He's strong, it just happens that his strength lies in a direction that is opposite to most people's.



When it comes down to it, it's all about context. If you took this same character out of context and simply said "He betrayed his kinsmen," then I'd question his strength. However, if you described to me his motive for betraying his kinsmen and the difficulty of his decision, then I wouldn't deny that he was a strong character. I may not want this guy on my team, but I wouldn't exactly want to be forced into duty either.

Interesting conversation


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Jun 14, 2013)

Scribble said:


> I am getting into anti-hero territory, but I'll ask you to humor me.
> 
> Let's say the struggle the character has is between his desire for surviving and holding to his duty to his kinsmen. Let's say he feels he never really belonged, and the duty he was forced into, he never believed in. It was the shame of betrayal that he felt, and he fought his fear of being branded a traitor. At the end, he overcomes his fear of being branded a traitor, and he hands the secret plans to the enemy. He knows he will pay the price of the guilt of those deaths, but he accepts that burden.
> 
> Now, I wouldn't want this guy on my team, but I have a hard time considering him a weak character. He's strong, it just happens that his strength lies in a direction that is opposite to most people's.



I agree.  Strength doesn't have to be "heroic."


----------



## Scribble (Jun 14, 2013)

A. E. Lowan said:


> I agree.  Strength doesn't have to be "heroic."



I just tricked you guys into becoming evil! 

Arguably this sort of thing by definition only really fits in grey or dark fantasy. I suppose that's where my interests lie.

"People with courage and character always seem sinister to the rest."
~Hermann Hesse


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Jun 14, 2013)

Oh, baby, I was evil WAY before you got here.


----------



## Weaver (Jun 14, 2013)

"I was corrupt before I had power, and rich is better."


----------



## The Dark One (Jun 14, 2013)

I think I disagree with most of this discussion. The question was about a 'strong character', yet most of the discussion has been about defining strength.

A strong 'character' can be pathetically weak in any way you can imagine, but still strong as a motivating force within the story.

Conversely, a character with all the wonderful characteristics listed above may be as boring as hell on paper and doesn't kick the plot along at all.

Strong 'characters' make things happen in your story, and not just the actions they perform themselves.


----------



## wordwalker (Jun 15, 2013)

Here's an idea I like that brings some of this together:

Take a character and the challenge he faces-- or better yet several challenges, a combination from the different parts of his place in life and the world. Then, have him run up against EVERY kind of obstacle those present. Not every last thing that could go wrong, but as wide a variety of them as you have room to represent while doing most of them justice.

I think that variety itself makes a powerful statement. If the character's strong and heroic (or epically tragic, or other variations), it means a lot to show him struggling through the different skills for leading soldiers and giving speeches and repairing roofs and making long marches and making children laugh and finding the good in old enemies and choosing between love and duty and... That is, if the story does any justice to how trying to handle so many kinds of things is, and how at least a few probably fail and change his plans. The more widely an epic touches base beyond "always use the sword," the more it builds the sense that the character's moving beyond any comfort zone of himself or the writer, and that he really is existing in his world and deserves to win. Not that that win is guaranteed, of course.

If the character and story are smaller scale... SAME THING. Even a "slice of life" is about rooting the reader in the midst of so many different things the MC has to deal with, with whatever varying outcomes they have, but that variety of challenges is still a big part of making even the weakest character make a strong impression. As it could be for anything on the scale in between.

Or, that's one way I like to look at it.


----------



## Chessie (Jun 15, 2013)

Wordwalker, I really like the way you put that. So would you give the mc challenges to face _aside_ from the one related to the main plot, correct? Let's say like a couple more?

I agree that a strong character is one that drives excitement in the story. Its the person whose pov you anticipate when turning the pages. Someone that is affected by their choices (thus affecting other characters and the overall plot) and grows from the experience while pushing the author to a new edge.


----------



## The Dark One (Jun 15, 2013)

My book that comes out in August (not fantasy...about half of what I do is sort-of fantastical) will be quite a challenge for some readers. The MC is (I believe) an incredibly strong character, but he's not very nice. He's rich, very smart, extremely arrogant and has nothing but contempt for his fellow man. And it's a first person narrative so we're in his (Morgen's) head most of the time.

Complicating matters is the fact that the story is also being told from the perspective of a detective in charge of a serial killer investigation and the reader must eventually begin to wonder...

Morgen would meet few of the definitions of 'strong' on this thread but by god he's a powerful character.


----------



## wordwalker (Jun 15, 2013)

Chesterama said:


> So would you give the mc challenges to face _aside_ from the one related to the main plot, correct? Let's say like a couple more?



Certainly. It depends on the sense of how focused the story is on a few things, but having a few challenges outside the main one can broaden the story a lot, and make it about the character as a whole rather than just "Can he win this quest?" And the specific trick is, whether it's one mission or many competing goals, play up how different moments call for him mastering whole different skills or perspectives or making completely different choices, so that by the end he's earned his victory in as many ways as possible.

And Chesterama, Dark One, great points there. Letting the plot change the character is a big part of it all. Or, playing up how much the character's different from the average reader-- dangit, now you've got me curious, Dark...


----------



## brokethepoint (Jun 17, 2013)

The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows. It's a very mean and nasty place and I don't care how tough you are it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain't about how hard ya hit. It's about how hard you can get it and keep moving forward. How much you can take and keep moving forward.

Rocky Balboa


----------



## Weaver (Jun 17, 2013)

The Dark One said:


> I think I disagree with most of this discussion. The question was about a 'strong character', yet most of the discussion has been about defining strength.
> 
> A strong 'character' can be pathetically weak in any way you can imagine, but still strong as a motivating force within the story.
> 
> ...





As the person who posted the original question, I believe I have a right to say you're incorrect about the point of the discussion.

I did not ask 'what makes for a good PoV character?" or 'what kind of character do people like to read about?' or 'what kinhd of character moves a story?'  (These are all valid questions -- they're just not the one I asked.)  I DID ask for responses defining "strength" as a trait.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 17, 2013)

Weaver said:


> As the person who posted the original question, I believe I have a right to say you're incorrect about the point of the discussion.
> 
> I did not ask 'what makes for a good PoV character?" or 'what kind of character do people like to read about?' or 'what kinhd of character moves a story?'  (These are all valid questions -- they're just not the one I asked.)  I DID ask for responses defining "strength" as a trait.



I can't argue with your desire to find a different kind of answer, but I actually found this was one of the most insightful responses in the thread! Maybe I am not understanding the question. 

Are you looking for a character who possesses _strengths_ (in the positive sense) and what those attributes are (ex: courage), or are you looking for what makes a _strong _character (strong within the context of the story, they move things along)?

I'm thinking about Gollum as an example here. He's pitiful in almost every way. He lacks just about every redeeming quality you could imagine. Except for a brief interlude where the fearful side of him seems to appreciate, he is reprehensible. He has arguably no "human" strengths: he is a slave to the ring. His defining characteristic is a burning desire for it.

I suppose you could argue that he _has_ strengths of a sort: cunning, deceit, ability to murder. Not positive elements, to be sure, but I would accept that as a counter.

Even so, I would not be easily convinced that Gollum is a weak character. Most of the characters in Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men are full of weakness, most do not escape their subordinate roles, yet they all move the story along.

Comment? Clarify?


----------



## Weaver (Jun 17, 2013)

Scribble said:


> I can't argue with your desire to find a different kind of answer, but I actually found this was one of the most insightful responses in the thread! Maybe I am not understanding the question.



I only responded to somepne saying 'Don't talk about what strength is -- this thread is about what makes an interesting character' because that is not the case.  I like seeing the side discussions, too, but I don't like seeing posters get reprimanded for answering my question.  *shrug*



> Are you looking for a character who possesses _strengths_ (in the positive sense) and what those attributes are (ex: courage), or are you looking for what makes a _strong _character (strong within the context of the story, they move things along)?
> 
> Sorry -- I thought I'd clarified that somewhere toward the beginning of the thread.  I'm asking for opinions on what traits are seen as "strong" -- personality-wise -- for story characters.  To use generic examples, 'someone who has a lot of bad stuff happen to them and doesn't break' or 'someone who knows his/her own mind and self.'  I don't think that these kinds of traits are necessary for a workable PoV character, or even for a secondary character who moves the plot -- we've all seen stories where a "weak" character is essential to make something happen -- just an explanation of what is meant when people start talking about 'this character is strong' versus 'this character is not strong.'
> 
> ...


----------



## Scribble (Jun 17, 2013)

That's perfect, I see what you mean. This is a great discussion! I missed the point about traits, so we were off in the weeds a bit. Still stimulating talk.

Something struck me in your comments - that "polarity of opposites" aspect in character building. There may be a better term I am forgetting/unaware of. This is where something negative in past experience expresses as a positive character strength.

An ex-thief, who has faced in his conscience the cost of his actions on people and their sense of security, has a heightened sense of justice and property than the person who never crossed the line.

Someone who has seen too much killing, turns around and becomes a pacifist. It serves to give them the determination to find the  courage to stand against violence in a peaceful way.

I do still think that strengths are absolutely subjective, particularly in terms of moral preferences. What one might see as weakness, another might see as a strength.

Things get a bit twisted around in a dystopian world. In 1984, Winston is against Big Brother. In terms of the state he's a traitor, secretive, he lies, he breaks laws. He makes a hard choice, to follow a path he knows will lead to no good. These things he does are in the context of his society horrible things, but in his world and in the character we see them as virtues. The virtue is that he is different and free in his mind in an oppressive world. Give those attributes to someone in a peaceful world, and they become reprehensible. 

It seems as though moral courage (subjective in the framework) is the key. It doesn't necessarily mean doing the right thing, but it means doing the hard thing. Out of this meandering I come to a definition:



> A character's strengths are born in adversity and they grow through making hard choices.


----------



## Addison (Jun 17, 2013)

I have found the strongest characters to be flawed characters. Because throughout the story they're struggling to overcome their flaw(s), which in some way connects to the overall story. It can also make for a suspense factor seeing as, at the end, in order for the hero to succeed they must overcome their flaw. 

For example, Frodo Baggins' flaw at the end is that he's become attached to the ring, yet it must be destroyed or his friends will die. He succumbs to the power, puts on the ring. Gollum bites it off, they fight and Gollum and the ring are destroyed. Frodo could have let go, followed the ring but he goes with Sam. The naive Shire-folk went through numerous trials, succumbed to evil and pulled through at the end. 

So yes, a strong character is one who is flawed yet lives with that flaw, using it or being hindered by it, all the way to the climax.


----------



## skip.knox (Jun 18, 2013)

One suggestion to add to the conversation here. If the character is strong, make him strong in relation to the other characters. They try to break down a door, then he breaks it down. It can be a small task or a large one, but having him act in context with the other characters will let you show his strength. It might also be worth showing its limits. Maybe he tries to lift something but can't quite. You can make the thing as big or small as you see fit. Then, later in the story, if he needs to do something superhuman, you could have him lift something just as heavy. Having a hero exceed himself is usually a good moment.


----------

