# Sympathetic Characters



## JCFarnham (Aug 1, 2012)

I recently watch the Brandon Sanderson lecture on Sympathetic characters and, considering I hadn't even noted anything down for _some_ of mine, I decided it would be worth thinking about how these character are sympathetic, or not, depending on the situation.

Brandon lists the things he thinks you should do as follows:



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

I can hit a lot of these points for the protagonist of my Faebound books, _I think._ My main reason for this thread is to get everyone thinking about their characters as well, but my sneaky, sneaky, underlying reason is to get some feedback on Catherine.

I'm stuck on her proactivity and what this says about her character (since the books are first person, the way she talks about herself does a lot of heavy lifting in characterisation). Here's what I wrote in my notes:



> Even when she complains about being proactive, she is enduringly curious enough to do them anyway. It is however possible that this is too contradictory - does it make sense? It could just be that she’s a cynic, but is she? Is it complicating things to call her this, and show her doing nearly the exact opposite things? Considering we are in first person the simple fact she is _calling herself_ docile and boring says a lot. She doesn’t trust in herself?



So what do you guys think? 

Despite her hitting the majority of the other points (and I know I don't need them to all be present) proactivity is the biggest of them. If a fantasy character isn't proactive you have a boring book. To me it's as simple as that. Even though Catherine is active in a way, do you think her complaining about it cheapens it, confuses it, complicates it, or adds to that sympathetic quality I'm looking for?

Remember, although I'm looking for specifics to my character problem, I'd love at the end of the day for this thread to become general advice.

_[An aside: dealing with this nature of hers would be her growth arc.]

[Another: I've got a blog post lined up for some time this month or next on more or less this subject, so please don't be too peturbed if I end up using some of your points. Be flattered I consider you guys representative ]_


----------



## danr62 (Aug 1, 2012)

In one of Brandon's other videos he talks about how he had to rewrite Dalinar's character in The Way of Kings. Dalinar had a lot of internal struggles, and Brandon felt this made him appear weak. Brandon ended up creating a new character so he could move these struggles to an external source, which worked extremely well, in my opinion.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 1, 2012)

I don't think her complaining confuses things, JC. I could see it getting irritating if it was incessant, particularly in a first person POV, but if done well it could add depth and internal conflict to the character. Hard to say without seeing the execution.

I haven't watched the Sanderson video, but let me say that if the premise is that your characters have to be sympathetic for a story to work, I disagree.


----------



## danr62 (Aug 1, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I haven't watched the Sanderson video, but let me say that if the premise is that your characters have to be sympathetic for a story to work, I disagree.



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.


----------



## JCFarnham (Aug 1, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I don't think her complaining confuses things, JC. I could see it  getting irritating if it was incessant, particularly in a first person  POV, but if done well it could add depth and internal conflict to the  character. Hard to say without seeing the execution.



I'm certainly worried about the execution of it. Very much so. 

On the subject of you seeing that execution, I have the first part of the first chapter up some where in Showcase but I can't say myself how far it goes towards characterising her. Although I am always looking for people to be writing buddies with. Someone to read and give feedback, and vice verse, as we both write the novel...



Steerpike said:


> I haven't watched the Sanderson video, but let me say that if the premise is that your characters have to be sympathetic for a story to work, I disagree.



Well. Not quite.

I think what you're talking about is likeable. And no, you're absolutely right, the character doesn't need to be likeable to be a successful character. By sympathetic Brandon meant that quality that can tempers villains giving them reasoning, or turn heroes from superman into spiderman. Both become someone you can *relate* to. In the lecture he goes on to give tips on how to achieve this.



			
				danr62 said:
			
		

> In one of Brandon's other videos he talks about how he had to rewrite  Dalinar's character in The Way of Kings. Dalinar had a lot of internal  struggles, and Brandon felt this made him appear weak. Brandon ended up  creating a new character so he could move these struggles to an external  source, which worked extremely well, in my opinion.



Externalising character struggles certainly can help. You make a good point. Only one could come unstuck doing this if they end up removing all that gives the character depth and resigning them to reacting only.


----------



## danr62 (Aug 1, 2012)

JCFarnham said:


> I'm certainly worried about the execution of it. Very much so.
> 
> Externalising character struggles certainly can help. You make a good point. Only one could come unstuck doing this if they end up removing all that gives the character depth and resigning them to reacting only.



Which goes back to the whole "proactive" thing again. If I remember correctly, Dalinar did have a big moment where he had to struggle with his identity. So while most of his struggles had been moved externally, he still reached the point where everything came crashing down on him and he had to decide whether he believed the things his son (the new character Brandon created) was saying. And he was definitely a proactive character.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Aug 1, 2012)

Most POV characters start out reactive then move to being proactive.

Stuff happens to them, they are forced to react. Eventually they realize they have to take the fight on themselves and become proactive, 

Your character's internal doubts and struggles are okay as long as she doesn't stay that way. As you stated above this is part of her character arc. So if her internal thoughts originally focus on what she views as weakness but those ideas change as she changes (because she is becoming more & more proactive) then you are fine.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 1, 2012)

Yes, maybe likeable is more accurate. I don't know. I've mentioned before Ian Graham's book _Monument_. It's a very good book. The main character Ballas, is not only unlikeable but has no redeeming qualities. While I did want the world to be saved, it wasn't through any sympathy at all for the main character, who I despised completely throughout the entire book. So there was no liking or sympathy from me for that character. I wanted him to save the world, but that didn't translate to sympathy, for me, if that makes sense.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 1, 2012)

danr62 said:


> 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.



I don't need a likeable or sympathetic character to care about the plot. If the stakes are high (like the end of the world), then I'm going to care about the outcome whether I feel anything positive toward the characters at all.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 1, 2012)

JCF,

Thanks for posting this.  I love adding new rules to my list 

Regarding your character: that's a tough one.  It's sounds like you're describing a reluctant hero.  That type has obviously worked well in any number of books, so it can be done.  On the other hand, it's the main problem I had with the heroine of The Hunger Games.  Things happened to her instead of her influencing events of her own accord.  It really depends on what you want for the character.

Regarding the discussion with Steerpike:

I much prefer reading about likeable characters.  However, I agree completely with you that the protagonist does not have to be likeable for the story to work.  I just read Critical Failures.  I don't think I liked any of the characters, but the book worked great.

The watchword of the day seems to be that relatable is what you have to achieve.  

The list above seems to refer more to likeability than relatability.  Since I'm trying to create likeable/sympathetic characters, that works for me.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 1, 2012)

@BWFoster78:

You really should check out Monument. If I could find my copy, I might even mail it to you   Seriously, I couldn't relate to Ballas. I didn't like him. He didn't have my sympathy. There were a number of times I wanted the bastard to die. Nevertheless, good book. Graham pulls it off quite well


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 1, 2012)

Steerpike,

I'll put it on my "to read" list.

I have read and enjoyed books with unlikeable characters, but it's not my personal preference.  Just as I've read and enjoyed books that don't end with the characters living happily ever after.  If I had my choice, though, I'd prefer the happy ending.


----------



## danr62 (Aug 1, 2012)

@Steerpike: I would probably have a hard time getting into a story like that, myself, but I see your point.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 1, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> I have read and enjoyed books with unlikeable characters, but it's not my personal preference.  Just as I've read and enjoyed books that don't end with the characters living happily ever after.  If I had my choice, though, I'd prefer the happy ending.



Yeah. It has to be done well for me to enjoy it, if the author is taking that route. Probably the best example of a character that one despises, but also finds engaging (he is presented as intelligent and witty) is Humbert Humbert, from _Lolita_. Unreliable narrator, and a very sick man. Nevertheless, brilliant book.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 1, 2012)

danr62 said:


> @Steerpike: I would probably have a hard time getting into a story like that, myself, but I see your point.



It was an interesting read. I read a review of Monument, which is what made me try the book. The review was very good, but the reviewer noted that it was the only time he could think of where he couldn't find anything redeemable about the main character. That intrigued me, but I admit I was leery about whether I would like it. In that case, I did. But I could see myself hating a lot of attempts to do the same thing.


----------



## Lorna (Aug 1, 2012)

This is interesting. Thought I'd go through it with my MC. 

•they have similarities to you or people you know [of]. (Pyric warrior in elemental world ruled by a totalitarian regime / fledgling writer living in Britain under a capitalist system. Vague analogy but on a whole, no).
•they face problems [underdog syndrome]. (Problems. That's an understatement. Yes).
•they are consistant. (Inconsistent and irrational. Comes from being part human / elemental. No).
•they have depth [and/or quirks]. (Yes).
•you might aspire to be them. (Noooo).
•they have some sort of expertise. (Yes).
•they are PROACTIVE. (Yes). 

Result- 1/2 and 1/2. Summarises my attitude toward him. Some admirable qualities on the one hand, but some aspects of his character I can't relate to at all. I think some readers would struggle to sympathise with him at all but I don't see this as a problem.  



> let me say that if the premise is that your characters have to be sympathetic for a story to work, I disagree.



I'm in agreement with Steerpike. Even if you don't like a character you can still enjoy following them, be involved in the ups and downs of the story and care about the overall outcome of the book. 



> Despite her hitting the majority of the other points (and I know I don't need them to all be present) proactivity is the biggest of them. If a fantasy character isn't proactive you have a boring book. To me it's as simple as that. Even though Catherine is active in a way, do you think her complaining about it cheapens it, confuses it, complicates it, or adds to that sympathetic quality I'm looking for?



I don't think a lack of proactivity in any novel is an issue if well executed. For example in Kashuo Ishiguro's _Remains of the Day_ the butler never acts out his feelings for the house keeper but you still feel sympathy for him. 

Catherine's self criticism could work two ways. If she's conscious of her flaws yet doesn't act on them depending on how you handle it, this could become irritating or generate tension and a sense of pathos.

I wouldn't base a character sketch on anybody else's 'instructions.' You've got to create your own.


----------



## JCFarnham (Aug 1, 2012)

Brandon's main point was that no, you don't have to like the character (he did reference some book I've never heard of...), but if there's that relatable element, as in you understand why they do/have to do the things they do, then the character is better for it. He says that even if this guy kills people, is constantly snarky, etc. etc. he has expertise (reeeally good at killing people), and is always _doing_ things. So as a protagonist he works. You hate him a LOT, but still want to know what he gets himself into next. 

Proactivity is the big one when it comes to the protagonist (_pro_- and _pro-_). Any other character you wish to be relatable doesn't necessarily have to be all those things on the list. They need not be proactive say if you can aspire to be them, or they appeal to your want to root for the underdog (like Ishiguro's butler). Any mix will do really. Villains - not likeable, wouldn't want to be them, but if they know what they are doing now, what they _need_ to do, and whole heartedly believe they are right - well that's a fairly "sympathetic/relatable" character and one that has more depth because of it.


Thank for the comments on Catherine, guys. I think the trick is going to be "pay attention to your betas"... as usual. I'm glad people don't think it'll inherently be a problem though.


EDIT: Here's an example of a pretty unlikeable character that's given a sympathetic edge that makes us root for him: Sherlock Holmes. In a lot of adaptations he's a borderline sociopath, but because he has a friend (Watson) it kind of takes that edge of him doesn't it. 

I once wrote a blog on the company your protagonists keep. The bottom line was, your secondaries can do an awful lot of heavy lifting for you if you work it right.


----------



## Helen (Aug 2, 2012)

JCFarnham said:


> they are PROACTIVE.



Can't go with that. Lots of them start out reactive before turning proactive.

EDIT: just realized that's already been said.



JCFarnham said:


> they face problems [underdog syndrome]



I'm thinking Michael Clayton - we're sympathetic to Karen Crowder because we see her insecurities when she's practicing her dialogue in front of the mirror.


----------



## JCFarnham (Aug 2, 2012)

Helen said:


> Can't go with that. Lots of them start out reactive before turning proactive.
> 
> EDIT: just realized that's already been said.



Exactly. If they're not proactive at some point in the story, to most (I know a couple of you will immediately throw examples at my to disagree with this but, it's mostly true. You know it ) that constitutes a pretty awful protagonist.


----------



## Ireth (Aug 2, 2012)

Helen said:


> Can't go with that. Lots of them start out reactive before turning proactive.
> 
> EDIT: just realized that's already been said.



Indeed. They say that in many cases "the villain makes the plot," and by that logic the hero has to be reactive, at least at first. They can later do their best to turn events in their favor, of course.


----------



## danr62 (Aug 2, 2012)

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 (Aug 2, 2012)

danr62 said:


> 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 (Aug 3, 2012)

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 (Aug 3, 2012)

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 (Aug 3, 2012)

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 (Aug 3, 2012)

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 (Aug 3, 2012)

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 (Aug 3, 2012)

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 (Aug 4, 2012)

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



danr62 said:


> 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 (Aug 4, 2012)

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 (Aug 4, 2012)

JCFarnham said:


> 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 (Aug 4, 2012)

> 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 (Aug 9, 2012)

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

The Secret Weapon of Crafting Effective Heroes


----------



## JCFarnham (Aug 9, 2012)

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_ how_he 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 (Aug 9, 2012)

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 (Aug 10, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> 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 (Aug 10, 2012)

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 (Aug 10, 2012)

FireBird said:
			
		

> 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.


----------

