How do you want your characters to be engaging?

[Jabrosky]

A lot of people here have said they wanted to create engaging or compelling characters, but I would argue that this is too vague a goal. I believe there are a number of different ways that characters can attract readers' interest. Some characters we relate to because they remind us of ourselves or people we know. Others, for example Captain Jack Sparrow of Pirates of the Caribbean fame, win our hearts through their sense of humor. And then you have those characters who work through arousing visceral sentiments like fear, desire, or awe.

After much musing on my goals as a writer, I've come to the conclusion that the characters I find most appealing are the so-called "larger than life" ones. They aren't necessarily ordinary people we may recognize from our mundane everyday lives, but instead they have certain skills, talents, or other attributes that make them stand out from the crowd and win our admiration. In briefer words, I like my characters to be awesome. Butt-kicking heroes, dastardly villains, and sexy heroines (who also kick butt) are just my kind of thing. That doesn't mean they can't have imperfections, of course, but they're definitely people we have fun witnessing in action.

What kind of characters would you like to create? How would they engage your readership? And how do you plan to go about designing these characters?

 

[skip.knox]

i'm partial to the 'ordinary man in extraordinary circumstances' story. Or, in some cases, the strange and unusual man in extraordinary circumstances. Not a superhero type, but the quirky or moody type, who finds himself in over his head.

But when it comes to creating my own characters, I can't say I make them up deliberately. They seem to evolve as part of the process, changing in various ways, sometimes in dramatic ways, in response to the plot or to relationships with other characters. That is, I can't envision any of my characters separate from the stories in which they exist.

 

[Caged Maiden]

I, too, prefer the ordinary person in extraordinary circumstances. I write deeply flawed, troubled souls. I put them through hellish tribulations, and most often allow them a happy ending once they overcome. I like to show characters becoming more than they thought they could be. I like it when characters need each other, emotionally, or to complete their goals.

When I write a character, I begin with concept. Maybe a bard or a paladin. THen, I take that concept and put an unlikely character into the mold. I give the their flaws and let their personality stem from a background. I thrown them into difficult situations and see how they react. I guess a lot of my characters develop throughout the story, and while some remain consistent, others change drastically. For example. one character I wrote, began her life in my novel, near age fifty. A bitter woman surviving for revenge. Late in the novel, I wrote a touching scene between her and her employee, a man in his late twenties, and surprised myself when it got a touch romantic. Well, I loved how it turned out, but then I thought she might be better younger. So when I edited, I changed her to around forty, still much older than him, but closer and more fitting her personality and reactions to her circumstances.

I find more often than not, my characters are often not fleshed out when I begin, but they take form as I go. So while I usually don't stray far from my original concepts, sometimes they warrant changing, just to have the right impact.

I think the things that make characters relatable, is to remember they are human. Sometimes they don't say the perfect thing. Sometimes, they fall in love on accident. Sometimes their flaws get the better of them. I try to write as close to real life as I can, because I think it makes the characters feel like real people, not imagined, idealized ones.

 

[Chessie]

I usually start out with an idea of what they look like, their age, one huge character flaw, and then I let them evolve as I work the details of the story. They surprise me every time. With my WIP, my main character started out as a necromancer...but through the evolution of free writing and imagining my story, she suddenly became a healing alchemist. Fits her much, much better.

 

[The Dark One]

My main characters are always born in the same moment the basic story idea crystallises in my head. There is something about the character's condition that is a natural part of the premise and incipient plot - the one couldn't exist without the other, and both evolve from there.

Accordingly, when the reader first perceives what the central drama is (or is likely to be) they must at the same time perceive the main character(s)'s role(s) and therefore look forward with pleasure to the way they anticipate the plot unfolding (plus the character's likely journey).

One of my most frequent criticisms of books and movies is that they seem to promise a great deal, and then rarely deliver - the characters do not have the journey the writer apparently promised - which can be deeply disappointing. I try to make it my style that I promise a lot, and then deliver far more than was originally promised, mainly through the gradual expansion of the scope of the story; ie the tale really grows in the telling and the conclusion is always far wilder than anything a reader could have guessed at the start. (At least, that is my hope.)

As for the characters themselves - I've had three novels published (or almost published) since 2010. One main character was an ordinary man with one extraordinary skill which had been thwarted for a range of stultifying vicissitudes of life reasons. Another was a very ordinary man who finds himself by accident in the most extraordinary circumstances and has the most incredible journey imaginable. And the one about to be published (next month) is about an extraordinary man who has an extraordinary obsession...which gets him into all sorts of trouble.

The other thing, I suppose, and I've never thought about this until today...my characters NEVER achieve their original goals. They always achieve something...but not what they hoped for at the beginning of the story.

 

[BWFoster78]

I read something once that completely contradicts the OP's premise: characters are engaging because they're made to suffer.

That's kinda the route I'm following.

 

[CupofJoe]

I read something once that completely contradicts the OP's premise: characters are engaging because they're made to suffer.

If you parse that to mean - You have to care what happens to them - then I agree.
It's the Superman problem...
He is noble and honest and leads a good clean American life. He is also strong and fast and is all but impervious to harm. He can even fly and has x-ray vision. He is just about perfect... and boring.
He needs Kyptonite to make him interesting.
All characters need their kryptonite.
As my father said when I was younger; "a little hard work is good for the soul" - usually while watching me mow the lawn.
So maybe a little suffering is okay.

I try to make characters that feel real to me.
I know I have types that I call on too frequently but that's another problem...

 

[Svrtnsse]

When I started out writing Enar's Vacation I only had a very vague idea of who Enar was. He's this random average guy with a dull job and not much else. He's your average stereotype paper-shuffler.
He's growing though. Some of the situations he ended up in and some of the thoughts he had have shaped him in a way and are now directing how he reacts in new situations. I was pretty happy with how he was turning out and then someone who read the two first chapters said "he's not a very sympathetic person is he".
At first I got a bit upset as there's a bit of me in the character and I'm writing him from my own experiences. I'm not sure him being an unsympathetic character is necessarily a bad thing though. It's probably better that my reader gets annoyed with Enar because he's narrow minded and ignorant then that they get bored with him because he doesn't touch them at all.

 

[BWFoster78]

If you parse that to mean - You have to care what happens to them - then I agree.

I parse it to mean that the reader cares what happens because of the suffering, that, absent any other trait, you can make your readers relate to a character who has to go through enough trials.

I think that particular aspect dovetails well with your Kryptonite example.

 

[Jabrosky]

I read something once that completely contradicts the OP's premise: characters are engaging because they're made to suffer.

I think there is a misunderstanding here. I never advocated that characters can't have any vulnerable spots whatsoever. A character can still wow us in certain ways even if they have weaknesses or the capacity to suffer. Take Conan for example. He may be an uncommonly talented warrior, but that hasn't prevented him from experiencing unpleasant events like dethroning, imprisonment, and even crucifixion in one story. The point I meant to communicate is that even though characters should have their weak areas, they should also have strengths that impress us. I don't know about you, but I for one don't want to read or write about weaklings who only exist to take punishment.

 

[BWFoster78]

Jabrosky,

I referred to this:

I believe there are a number of different ways that characters can attract readers' interest. Some characters we relate to because they remind us of ourselves or people we know. Others, for example Captain Jack Sparrow of Pirates of the Caribbean fame, win our hearts through their sense of humor. And then you have those characters who work through arousing visceral sentiments like fear, desire, or awe.

If you go by the quote I gave, the only thing necessary to make a character engaging is the author making them suffer, not having them remind us or ourselves or their sense of humor or because they're a hero.

 

[Chessie]

...my characters NEVER achieve their original goals. They always achieve something...but not what they hoped for at the beginning of the story.

Its much more interesting this way, isn't it? With the main idea being transformation, so long as that takes place is all that matters to me as a reader and writer. Usually what the character ends up receiving in the end is much more valuable and along the lines of what they wanted to begin with.

Like Scarlett O'Hara in 'Gone With The Wind'. She thinks she wants Ashley Wilkes and chases after him the entire story. But what she really wanted was real love. And the ending is brilliant.

 

[Creed]

I read something once that completely contradicts the OP's premise: characters are engaging because they're made to suffer.

This may make me seem shallow or psychopathic, but why should I care about someone who's suffering?
Now of course I do feel sympathy, but that's not the way to connect with a reader, I'd say- and if it is it's more blunt than a hammer and lacks all finesse.
Whether or not the character is "larger than life" the author has a duty to first make me connect and care about the character, and ONLY THEN make them suffer. Then you'll get some sort of effect out of me, because in some way (even it it's a small way) I've become invested in them, and I don't want them to suffer.
I think this may have been what BWFoster was saying. If so, the question posed by the OP is still about how to make the character engaging BEFORE you bring on the pain.
Now I like a touch of awesomeness- but only a touch. My personal enjoyed use of it is when the character reaches a breaking point and is forced to be awesome. Of course, this has been done badly many times before, but in the case of Achamian in R. Scott Bakker's The Warrior Prophet… well that scene is branded in my memory. One of my favourite author's of all time.
And how does he do it? How does he make me invested in his characters? Emotion. More than any piece of plot that happens it's the emotions they feel and the evolution they undergo.

 

[BWFoster78]

This may make me seem shallow or psychopathic, but why should I care about someone who's suffering?

I have no idea the theory behind it. Since I've read the quote, though, I've paid more attention to characters that I'm reading about and trying to examine why I do or do not like them.

From my experience, there does seem to be validity to the claim.

If you don't feel the same, maybe it's not universal. All I can say is: works for me.

 

[Creed]

I have no idea the theory behind it. Since I've read the quote, though, I've paid more attention to characters that I'm reading about and trying to examine why I do or do not like them.

From my experience, there does seem to be validity to the claim.

If you don't feel the same, maybe it's not universal. All I can say is: works for me.

No, I think there is most definitely validity to it. It's certainly not universal, but I'd say there's a lot behind it.
Jabrosky referred to them as "weaklings who only exist to take punishment" and that is not going to make me feel any sort of connection- it's more likely to make me slam down the book and avoid the author for such a gross book.
If you want to make a connection THROUGH the suffering then you need to make the character worthy of it. Perseverance is a common emotion an author infuses into a suffering character, because it makes them seem strong. And though I see it often it's still done well every now and again. The drive to rise above the pain is another, or take the Spartacus-y route and go with disobeyment or rebellion. Those are things that indicate positive character development, that make a connection and the audience root for the character, and in the end produce a hero.
If you want to make characters who just feel pain then there's likely to be negative character development, which often creates the tragic hero.
Now of course tragedies are good, too. I maintain a mix of plots with tragic souls who suffer and come to tragic demises. However emotion and evolution and a half dozen other tricks can make anybody at least somewhat engaging to the reader (as far as emotional connection goes).

 

[BWFoster78]

No, I think there is most definitely validity to it. It's certainly not universal, but I'd say there's a lot behind it.
Jabrosky referred to them as "weaklings who only exist to take punishment" and that is not going to make me feel any sort of connection- it's more likely to make me slam down the book and avoid the author for such a gross book.
If you want to make a connection THROUGH the suffering then you need to make the character worthy of it. Perseverance is a common emotion an author infuses into a suffering character, because it makes them seem strong. And though I see it often it's still done well every now and again. The drive to rise above the pain is another, or take the Spartacus-y route and go with disobeyment or rebellion. Those are things that indicate positive character development, that make a connection and the audience root for the character, and in the end produce a hero.
If you want to make characters who just feel pain then there's likely to be negative character development, which often creates the tragic hero.
Now of course tragedies are good, too. I maintain a mix of plots with tragic souls who suffer and come to tragic demises. However emotion and evolution and a half dozen other tricks can make anybody at least somewhat engaging to the reader (as far as emotional connection goes).

Good point!

The character's reaction to the suffering is of utmost importance. It's perseverence through suffering that builds the connection, not the suffering itself.

 

[Steerpike]

Most humans have the capacity for empathy, some greater than others. It may be higher in readers than in the general population, I don't know. Suffering is also a universal experience. Putting characters in situation where they suffer is a way to tap into that natural empathy that we share and make readers feel for the characters. It's not the only way to do it, but in my experience it is one of the most effective.

 

[Creed]

Most humans have the capacity for empathy, some greater than others. It may be higher in readers than in the general population, I don't know. Suffering is also a universal experience. Putting characters in situation where they suffer is a way to tap into that natural empathy that we share and make readers feel for the characters. It's not the only way to do it, but in my experience it is one of the most effective.

I can liken this to the beginning of Way of Shadows by Brent Weeks. Two side characters, Jarl and Doll Girl, suffered quite a lot. I felt sympathy, but made no connection. The MC suffered too, but went on a little journey. I liked Jarl a lot more when he was reintroduced as a strong and hardened character. He lost his innocence, but gained defence. That's the sort of thing suffering can do to a character, and that evolution is what makes a connection (for me (and admittedly it wasn't incredibly strong)).
Like I said pain works, but the reaction to it is in my opinion the path to making an engaging and connectable character. Even if it's a negative change that's meant to pull on your heartstrings- in fact especially that for some people.
Of course, it still has to be written well.

 

[Daichungak]

Good point!

The character's reaction to the suffering is of utmost importance. It's perseverence through suffering that builds the connection, not the suffering itself.

I agree with this 100% The character's reaction is the story, without it all we have is a list of tragic events.