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

Developing Character Development

Naomi Rey

New Member
Which brings me back to these secondary characters. How much character development do I do here? The easy answer is, less than for MCs, but that's not really much help. Moreover, there's an aspect to secondary characters not found in MCs; namely, the relationship to the MC. Why did this secondary join up with the MC? Also, secondary characters are a way to add shading or contrast to the MC. Depth. Someone to argue with or agree with or sacrifice for.

As I work on the SCs for each of my MCs, I am finding the process keeps me looking back at plot but also at theme. I don't think it's necessary, or even wise, to try to map out every place where an SC steps onto the stage, what he does while there, and so on. But likewise not to look at it at all risks having an SC who is a cardboard cutout who merely serves a plot point but is otherwise flat. The story deserves better than that.

Often said is the idea that every C must have a motive. "Write it down at the bottom corner of the page," they say. It's that important. Now, I have never gotten anything out of writing it in the margins. However, I do think that motivation is important for the SC as well as the MC.

The SC connects to your Mc, sure. But they also connect to your reader, your plot, and your overall message or theme. For example when X happens at the climax, how will that effect the MC? But also, the reader may remember that the SC(s) will also lose something or be changed by the plot. For example, your MC has a younger sister who is on the verge of getting married. Your MC's story might be a criminal thriller, but does the MC miss the wedding? That shows an aspect of your MC, putting work/crime before family. It also costs the MC something, relationship with the sister and the associated family members who also feel insulted by missing the wedding. Just an example.

How does the SC connect to the overall plot? Do we see the wedding (same event for an example) as being ruined by the bitterness of the coming zombie apocalypse? Here, the SC does not show us the connection to the MC, but the connection to the overall picture. What normalcy humanity will lose with the advent of the coming disaster.

Having a SC who is on a journey or pursuing a desire if important to the story for many reasons. Even if you only touch on that journey in a throw away line here and there, it still serves to connect human-ness to the story. At the same time, don't add a SC just to augment the MC. Use the SC to add depth to the overall work. That keeps your SC, and your story as a whole, from the flat and narrow.
 

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
I want to take a second to talk about what I see as one of the biggest, most under-discussed differences between Harry Potter and Game of Thrones. I think it's important because it highlights two different approaches to character development.

All of the characters in Game of Thrones - almost without exception - are what I would describe as highly profiled. It's like GRRM wrote detailed guides on how to write Jamie Lannister or Ned Stark or Brianne of Tarth that he consults often and follows strictly. The line of what's in character, or out of character, for anyone in Game of Thrones is bright and bold and shall not be crossed.

In Harry Potter, a few characters, like Voldemort, Hagrid, or Luna Lovegood, are highly profiled. But most have only modest profiles, and even the main three characters of Harry, Ron and Hermione, are only moderately profiled at best. Hermione is the smart one, and Ron has kind of an insecure mean streak, and Harry is both the hero and the audience surrogate. But all of them have told jokes, and gotten snarky, or done something smart or brave or foolish (Hermione jinxed people trying out for Harry's Quidditch team, for example).

I don't mean to say that their character building is flawed in any way. But there's a lot of "normal people" in Harry Potter. Nobody in Game of Thrones is really quite normal.

Based on this, I want to go back and change something from my earlier post. The "Core Distinction" or "Spotlight" group. I want to change that to say characters who for whatever reason need to be highly profiled need a little extra attention (like my Hobs). And characters who need a modest to moderate profile need much less fore thought.
 
What I am reading here, and what I've been thinking since leaving my previous comments in this thread, is that we have a lot of flexibility when designing our cast of characters. (Whether they are designed before writing or come into view while writing.)

Having watched characters slide in one direction or the other, I'd not fret too much over the line between secondary and tertiary. The categories are real enough, but trying to define them too carefully is a waste of effort. Is there more too it than just screen time? Maybe, but I suspect the line is going to get drawn differently for each different story and author.
....
If the distinction is quantitative rather than qualitative, then it really is a matter of seeing who remains on the page when the editing's done. If it's qualitative, if there is some clear functional difference, I'll be keeping an eye out for it and will duly report to the Scribally Assembled.

There do seem to be sliding scales, and I'm curious to know what qualities affect those scales.

Very generally, I think quantitative differences—regarding page space, screen time—will often result from the qualitative differences. But this is a ballpark summary, heh, and I suspect many features we might use to distinguish between secondary characters and tertiary characters are slippery.

For instance, I love what Naomi Rey said above. Secondary characters should have motivations, goals, and be affected by developments in the plot. Basically, they should have character arcs. But thinking of this, I remembered that some of the tertiary characters in Robin Hobb's Farseer books also had obvious arcs. See, in my mind, I can say those were tertiary characters, because this seems obvious when I think of them. But...why? One of the differences seems to be that those characters indeed changed throughout the story—especially if you consider the span of the trilogy, or even multiple trilogies in that world—but most of that change happened off-screen. They were not present for most of the major plot developments, or at least not in the foreground; but when Fitz next sees them, he remarks on how much they've obviously changed since the last time he saw them. Indeed, sometimes the change was directly related to something plot-relevant that had happened. (Like a death in the family.) I think the secondary characters I remember from the trilogy had more direct influence on the development of the plot? Were simply in the thick of things more often than those tertiary characters? Interacted with Fitz, the POV character, frequently, and we could see them living through their own changes? Is this the difference?

In this case, all those things also meant more screen time for those SCs.

Then, too, Naomi Rey also mentioned how secondary characters help show/connect us with the bigger picture of the story. I think this is a great observation. But those tertiary characters may also be shown to have changed as a result of what's happening in the bigger picture...More like brief flashes of insight, however. The distinction seems slippery but...still there?
 

skip.knox

toujours gai, archie
Moderator
Good comments. Maybe the qualitative difference has to do with whether there's a resolution. That is, a tertiary character might change, might affect or be affected by the plot, but the reader isn't invested in the consequences. At the end of the book, it's a secondary character if we're left wondering "yeah, but what about Character Z?" Where Z is not an MC, and where the author unforgiveably didn't resolve that secondary character's plot line for us.

To grab an example, Molly and Schmendrick are clearly the secondary characters in Beagle's The Last Unicorn. The author gives us a sweet little postscript that lets us see those two off. The story would feel unfinished if we didn't know what happened with them. We don't really need resolution for Drinn, for all that he plays an important role. I wonder if one of the purposes of a denouement isn't precisely to provide a space for resolving secondary character arcs.

I agree it's not about quantity, it's about quality. Now, if only we could define what is quality.... (shout out to Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance <g>)
 
Good comments. Maybe the qualitative difference has to do with whether there's a resolution. That is, a tertiary character might change, might affect or be affected by the plot, but the reader isn't invested in the consequences. At the end of the book, it's a secondary character if we're left wondering "yeah, but what about Character Z?" Where Z is not an MC, and where the author unforgiveably didn't resolve that secondary character's plot line for us.

To grab an example, Molly and Schmendrick are clearly the secondary characters in Beagle's The Last Unicorn. The author gives us a sweet little postscript that lets us see those two off. The story would feel unfinished if we didn't know what happened with them. We don't really need resolution for Drinn, for all that he plays an important role. I wonder if one of the purposes of a denouement isn't precisely to provide a space for resolving secondary character arcs.

Yes! I think this may be a natural result of having developed secondary characters throughout the story. If they are multifaceted, have obvious personal goals and motivations and character arcs the reader has been following, then the natural desire is to see them on the other side of the main plot when the major conflicts have been resolved. Their finished state.

Compare that to any number of tertiary characters that might have similar elements to them but simply disappeared from the story at some point. The reader probably won't feel like something's missing if they aren't involved in the climax or reintroduced in the denouement. OTOH, I think I've experienced the power of flashing some tertiary characters in the climax or denouement, when the author takes the time to include them in the background. (Vaguely, because I can't remember the specifics in detail, I'm thinking of the example of the final battle at Hogwarts, when various characters are said to have died in this or that way or are lying injured or just viewed tending to others.) These are like Easter eggs or bonuses, not expected or desired in advance, so are not "wanted" until they occur and give unexpected depth to a situation.

One quality I've been mulling is the issue of exaggeration. Tertiary characters seem to have a one-note quality to them. Even if they change throughout the story (off screen), they're now this instead of that. For instance, the teen who was bubbly and full of excitement when the POV character first and last saw him is now, three years later when the POV character sees him again, hardened and bitter because of his father's death in the war. That character is going to remain hardened and bitter; that's just him, now.

This is another slippery quality, because sometimes secondary characters are often exaggerated in some way. Even main characters. But I think the fact that they appear in more of the book (quantity again) permits showing more perspective on secondary characters, more opportunity for making them multifaceted, fleshed out, etc., so that whatever dominating personality they have won't be the only thing about them experienced by the POV character and the reader. Plus, this is slippery because even tertiary characters can be given more depth than a cardboard cutout. (Although I think this will be more implied with tertiary characters, or not so well-drawn and obvious as with secondary characters.)
 

skip.knox

toujours gai, archie
Moderator
At least this is giving me a way to think about this stuff, and especially a help to planning. In my earlier works, it really was just here's my MC, here's the people who traveled with him. Fantasy adventure, in particular, tends to be party-based, so it becomes Hero & Friends. And enemies. That can work, but it's of little help once you start moving in other structural directions.
 

Heliotrope

Staff
Article Team
Another thing I thought of today is that how much you develop your characters depends on the tone of the story. Comedic characters are almost always less dimensional than dramatic characters.
 
Another thing I thought of today is that how much you develop your characters depends on the tone of the story. Comedic characters are almost always less dimensional than dramatic characters.

Yes, I think this is often true. Maybe there are other story types that also work well this way? Some allegorical tales like Animal Farm? Fables? Traditional fairy tales? Even some types of adventure? The focus doesn't seem to be on character so much, but on some other aspect or quality of the tale.

Even if a main character is "more dimensional," side characters might not be. Tinkerbell doesn't have much personality, at least the incarnations I remember. Even Chewbacca, R2-D2, and C-3PO are rather one-dimensional. (Of these three, Chewbacca seems to have much more implied complexity, however.) The dwarf companions in the Hobbit fall into a similar category.
 
I stumbled on a webpage outlining Card's M.I.C.E. in the course of writing a comment in another thread, and this quote from Card stood out:

"Characterization is not a virtue, it is a technique; you use it when it will enhance your story, and when it won't, you don't."

This was included under the heading for Milieu stories; but it applies basically everywhere. Heck, I think it could be written for the other three letters in M.I.C.E. also, heh.
 

skip.knox

toujours gai, archie
Moderator
I wonder about advice along the lines of "use it when it works" because most inexperienced writers don't know when it works. And such advice is often explicitly aimed at the inexperienced writer. What we want (and after four novels, two short stories, and two novelettes I still count myself an inexperienced writer) is advice that helps us learn how to recognize "when it works."

That kind of advice is rare.

It's a bit like being an aspiring musician and having someone say only write a tune if it's catchy. How do you write a catchy tune? Easy, keep writing tunes until you get a feel for writing *your* brand of catchy tune. I remember hearing an interview with Paul McCartney some time back in the 1980s. In it he said he knew he could write a top 10 song. He wasn't bragging, it was the assessment of a master craftsman of his own abilities. He was at the height of his songwriting successes and he could indeed be assured of writing a hit song. But not just any hit song--a McCartney hit song. Whatever it was he knew didn't translate over to another artist. We each have to learn how to write our own hits and the path is a little different for each of us.

I think this is why the advice about "when it works" is rare. What works for one writer doesn't necessarily work for another. It's a ton easier to identify what doesn't work than what does.
 

Demesnedenoir

Myth Weaver
I am instinctual when it comes to characters and how developed they are, but they all become more than they started, heh heh. For instance, one popular character with readers has been Solineus... latest review called him “the man”... and one of his main traits started because! I didn’t feel like writing any time-wasting chit chat before making a decision. So, if this character sees a threat, he moves toward it. An army on the hill? Let’s go see what they want. A plan?

“Of course I got a plan. We talk, or we kill as many of them we can before we die.”

That sums up much his attitude.

I start with general motivation and what the story needs. I often don’t know what somebody looks like until I write it. I might be insane. But it works. Oft times, the greatest revelations come in the middle of writing an entirely unrelated sentence.

The characters are very detailed in my head... I know enough of the stories of several secondary characters (who appear once and disappear) and their motivations and personalities that I could spin off several novels in several directions, but what do I have written down about them? Nada. Of course, this might also be why I forget to pay my bills and other mundane parts of life, heh heh. The character sheet never worked for me.
 
For me, the line between who is a MC and who is ultimately destined to be an SC is quite blurred in the early (and even later) writing stages. I don't focus on it too much because it feels like an arbitrary limitation. I think of it as a main character core cast, and after that? Let's put it this another way: I don't set out writing with the intention of drafting a decidedly secondary cast...
I let development happen organically and worry about categorizing characters later. If ever. If they become a MC...oops? What am I going to do? Not write what feels like a good idea or direction for the character because I decided ages ago to designate them as SC? Not happening.

Then, sometimes, what I thought were the background characters can sometimes get further developed into secondary characters quite accidentally, as a beta reader pointed out. I do end up with re-writes where I edit a character out completely, or combine multiple characters into 1 new character. I'm not in the habit of creating characters just for the sake of creating them, if that makes any sense. After a while too many characters for the sake of a large cast starts to feel like a square peg-round hole situation. And if it feels like it's a forced or awkward fit, I'd rather not bother keeping them. If it starts becomming a prattling list of names with some key stats, it starts to feel like a trading card collection rather than a narrative.

If I create a character that gets a name, dialogue, interactions, furthers or contributes to the plot, and maybe even has an arc or interesting background story... does it really matter if they're only around for a couple of chapters? Their time in the book could be brief, but utterly important. Then, good grief, what about signifigant or foundational or pivotal historical characters? How do I classify them? Nope, not going to get analytical, just want to write lol.

I guess if I had to describe a development methodology it would be "pragmatic". I have a main character who I ultimately needed to be a weaver, seamstress, fiber artist and, also, a dye artist. It occurred to me that, as a dye artist, she would also need expansive and exacting knowledge of natural materials and plant matters for creating textile dyes. So, she could also easily be a master naturalist or herbalist having to collect and source these materials. Also, dyework requires some sophisticated understanding of organic chemistry. From there, why not make her come from a people of master naturalists or nomadic survivalists ? Ah! Now I have a door to creating a culture and a history. In my mind, the framework for the development of this character makes total sense, and it feels organic. Am I also going to make her a world-class master combative swordsman? No. But, perhaps proficient with a longstaff and bow, and not too shabby as a trapper and a tracker as that seems more in keeping with a woodsman's skill set.

Now, her 'adoptive parents' might fit the bill for "secondary characters". But, for the brief amount of page time they'll get, they're really signifigant. I'm not writing them to fill a specific category or round out a scene- that doesn't even cross my mind. I wrote them because I intended for their existence to be of genuine significance to the story. I'll let readers ultimately decide their designation. Trying to actually sit back and analyze this will give me a headache lol.
 
I guess if I had to describe a development methodology it would be "pragmatic". I have a main character who I ultimately needed to be a weaver, seamstress, fiber artist and, also, a dye artist. It occurred to me that, as a dye artist, she would also need expansive and exacting knowledge of natural materials and plant matters for creating textile dyes. So, she could also easily be a master naturalist or herbalist having to collect and source these materials. Also, dyework requires some sophisticated understanding of organic chemistry. From there, why not make her come from a people of master naturalists or nomadic survivalists ? Ah! Now I have a door to creating a culture and a history. In my mind, the framework for the development of this character makes total sense, and it feels organic. Am I also going to make her a world-class master combative swordsman? No. But, perhaps proficient with a longstaff and bow, and not too shabby as a trapper and a tracker as that seems more in keeping with a woodsman's skill set.

That sounds a lot like Sanderson's Third Law (of Magic). I make the last part parenthetical because he came up with the idea for magic systems, but the law applies almost everywhere. Go deep, not wide. By digging deep on that character, you've found interconnections to lots of areas and hopefully ended up with a deeper character. Let's imagine you took a different route. She's a weaver, seamstress, fiber artists and dye artist, but she isn't a master naturalist or herbalist, knows little of organic chemistry, is alone in her chosen profession among her people, and has little skill with longstaff, bow, trapping and tracking. To make her work, you'd probably need some side characters or tertiary characters who could compensate for these deficiencies. That means a slightly larger cast and lots of page space showing her interacting with these other individuals. That wouldn't be bad, necessarily, if part of the theme of the story revolved around the fact that she's a novice just trying to get her feet on the ground—and, if you were taking a look at her socialization and the way she had to struggle in her immediate milieu or had become dependent on lots of people.

Now, her 'adoptive parents' might fit the bill for "secondary characters". But, for the brief amount of page time they'll get, they're really signifigant. I'm not writing them to fill a specific category or round out a scene- that doesn't even cross my mind. I wrote them because I intended for their existence to be of genuine significance to the story. I'll let readers ultimately decide their designation. Trying to actually sit back and analyze this will give me a headache lol.

When choosing other characters to add, what are the basic concerns? I think:
  1. Importance to characterization of MC.
  2. Importance to plot development.
  3. Basic pragmatics for the storytelling.
#1 refers mostly to the way we need other characters to help flesh out the MC. Maybe they act as foils for the MC. Maybe they have had an important effect on the MC's personality, mental state, and general knowledge. Maybe they exist to allow us to show a MC in action within the social milieu; what's her relationship to the rest of society, to friends and loved ones, to those she depends on (whether she wants to or not) ?

#2 seems self-evident. It could be the non-MC characters will do something or know something quite important to the plot. Or a character might help motivate the MC to engage with the primary plot or make particular choices relating to the plot development, in which case this blends with #1.

#3, to my mind, is what determines the inclusion of a lot of tertiary or background characters. For instance, your MC has to acquire a horse somehow, so your MC is going to deal with a horse owner, and/or horse seller and/or stable owner and/or stable boy or girl. Or your MC enters a tavern; someone must be providing the refreshments. This sort of thing. I suppose #3 could blend with #2 in some way, maybe especially for some types of important historical figures and such? If MC needs to learn something quite relevant to the the plot, and no one alive knows the history, then the important writer of a scroll or the important actors in that past event may be both, pragmatically included and important to the plot development, even if the MC doesn't interact with them directly. Or, if she does interview one of the old fogey actors, maybe that character exists only for this purpose.

Not every character will ring all these bells, heh. But I do think every character will fall into at least one of these categories? I might add a #4: Character reveals something about the world (for the reader.)

But on the whole, I do think a lot of these decisions come intuitively or instinctually much of the time. Perhaps rather than at the outset, the revision process is where the deeper questions will occur, Some tweaking.
 
Last edited:
Top