Creating attachment between reader and character

[Svrtnsse]

In the thread about Ordinary People, I posted the following:

Now...
How do I make the reader care about Enar?
Well, that's a very good question, and I'm really glad you asked, because it's a great question...

It's also an entirely different topic.

We could take that discussion there, but I think it'd derail that thread a bit so I'm opening this one instead.

Basically, I think it's important that the reader cares about the character and what happens to them, but how do you achieve this?

For now, I don't have any good, solid advice on this. Instead, at the moment I'm kind of just winging it and hoping that I'm somehow able to establish some kind of connection between the reader and my characters.

I think this is one of those vague, fluffy concepts where it's difficult to give specific advice and you just have to go with what feels right.

What's your take on this? Do you have any tricks for making your reader care, or do you have any insights into how the bond between a reader and an imaginary character is established?

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

There's many ways to go about this. In my way of thinking, I try to create sympathy and/or admiration with a focus on being interesting.

Sympathy is one of those writerly words we toss around a lot that doesn't mean what it would in normal conversation, not fully, at least. In writing, sympathy means those aspects of character that help your reader identify on some level with a character, or traits that make the reader want to be your character. I'm sure there are more layers, but in my mind, that is the basic concept.

Before going further, I'd like to state that sympathy does not have anything to do with condoning a character's actions. We might read of a deplorable, but interesting character, who really pulls us in. That might makes us wonder why we care , considering their not-so-likable actions. Here's why....

1) They are interesting. This the only iron-clad rule in writing, as far as I'm concerned. Your characters and stories must be interesting. A character might be interesting for several reasons. Perhaps they are an expert in an unusual field. Or, perhaps they have a deep conflict between who they want to be and a sense of duty that drives them another direction. Again, there are many routes to go about this. Trust your writer's gut here, but really put some thought into making your characters as interesting as possible.

2) There is something about that character (even a villain, if they're a good one) that we can identify with. The best characters feel real and human because the writer doesn't create a one, or two, dimensional caricature. Rather, they present a well-rounded character, one we might identify with on some, or many, levels.
So, you have a devious character. He's a real bastard and frustrates your protagonist at every turn...BUT, he also takes care of his invalid younger sister, the only person who has ever accepted him unconditionally. Maybe his despicable actions protect her in some way.Maybe he hates himself for what he does, but sees no alternative. Maybe in doing all the wrong things, for the right reasons, he's warped over time. His sister is the only one who recognizes that the person he once was is still there, buried deep.
Most people can identify with caring for another & the willingness to do whatever it takes to protect someone they love, even at the expense of their own happiness. That is a general human quality that binds the majority of us in life. Use those experiences we commonly share as people, those that transcend superficial differences like nationality, race, religion, etc.

The most iconic characters are all interesting beyond the surface. They also all have traits and/or behaviors we identify with as readers.

My advice is to layer those aspects of character as much as you can without bloating the character beyond credulity. Your job as a writer is executing that balance.

EDIT: After you create that character, put them through hell. No one wants to read about a well-crafted character happily sipping tea on a park bench on a sunny day and then going home for the night. Few people would pick up The Village of the Happy People, but The Village of the Damned...well, that's far more intriguing.

The tribulations must test, or call into question, everything they are. Force them into action. For most characters, they'll need to change...become something else, and in doing so, alter the outcome.

 

[FifthView]

Sometime awhile back, Heliotrope opened a thread asking the same thing:

http://mythicscribes.com/forums/writing-questions/15421-writing-characters-reader-cares-about….html

I'd introduced links from various Writing Excuses podcasts discussing their idea about the 3 Pronged Character Development that might be helpful:

Heliotrope:

Here's a great tool that Brandon Sanderson uses for developing engaging characters:

Writing Excuses 9.13: Three Pronged Character Development.

I think it's important to think in terms of engaging characters, rather than only likeable characters. A summary of his approach:

Each character can be thought of as having three aspects, each falling on a scale, and they are

• Competence
• Proactivity
• Likeability/Sympathy

Characters can be unlikeable (say, "2" of ten on the likeability scale) but have high competence and proactivity and still be engaging. A lot of villains may be like this.

Characters can be highly proactive and likeable but lower in competence and still be engaging. I think he used Indiana Jones as an example of this.

A character arc for a whole novel will usually involve a little sliding of these scales. A character may start out with a low competency but grow more competent as the novel progresses. Or he may start out unlikeable and end up more likeable. Etc.

The above podcast is a great introduction to this tool for thinking about character development. There are three follow-up podcasts addressing in more detail how to adjust each scale:

Writing Excuses 9.25: Adjusting Character Sympathy

Writing Excuses 9.26: Adjusting Character Competence

Writing Excuses 9.32: Adjusting Character Proactivity

 

[Svrtnsse]

Sometime awhile back, Heliotrope opened a thread asking the same thing:

My bad - should have searched. :/

 

[Heliotrope]

Yep, I've done a TON Of learning since then on this topic, as well as paying close attention when I'm reading. I don't just believe you can create characters readers are attached to. I think you should.

That post was about "save the cat" which I still feel is a very useful tool, if you want to create a character who is in the 'good' category. Save the Cat is a screen writing strategy where in the first scene you set it up so the character does 'something' heroic or selfless. This can be as basic as saving a cat (like Weaver's character in Alien) to something HUGE like confronting a child molester (as in the book I'm currently reading, Odd Thomas).

Other strategies include: Showing that someone cares for the character in some way. Showing that the character cares for someone in some way, showing the character make noble choices, showing the character be brave, etc. There are tons more. Giving them some sort of honerable quality right away.

Another strategy I use is making sure the character is pro-active. The character should be an active participant in their own story. I believe stories are about choices, not events. So in the first scene the character should be driven to make a choice, and when they make that choice it makes them interesting... WHY did they make that choice? What will that choice lead to? What sort of other choices will they make? All these questions get raised in the reader's head and they keep reading to see what sort of choices the character will make next. If random events are simply happening to the character and he is simply re-acting instead of acting, then the character will get 'boring' quickly.

There is so much more! But I'm out of time for this morning....

 

[Miskatonic]

A character's personality is a big part of it. Just look at your favorite film and TV characters. What things about them instantly come to mind? What famous catch-phrases did they have? Was their look iconic? Did they have a great rivalry with another character?

I understand the need for the audience to have some emotional connection or at least sympathize with the plight of the character, but I don't think that's necessarily enough.

I could read a non-fiction account of say a soldier behind enemy lines that went to hell and back and can connect with them on a human level because I have empathy for them, but I may not form as strong a bond with them as I might a fictional character. They may not be as memorable as a fantasy fiction character.

There's a reason why famous action movie stars are so memorable, even those from films decades old. They were going through some serious stuff but their personality and their own way of handling things left a lasting impression.

I grew up in the 80's so Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone are two guys that played roles in movies that made a huge impression on me as a young boy. They had iconic lines, fought iconic villains and were larger than life.

These movies might be popcorn fluff compared to other more serious films, but I can tell you that I'm much more likely to put on Predator or Rambo and watch it for the zillionth time than I am to watch The Godfather or Vertigo (though I do love those films).

An iconic character can elevate the plot they are in simply by the connection the reader has made with them. Just look at comic books. It's the same old stories recycled a million times but readers keep going back because they love the characters and want to seem them do what they are famous for.

Just another way to look at it.

 

[Velka]

Like others have said, creating well rounded characters that have admirable traits/flaws/quirks/hangups/etc is the core of forging a connection between the reader and the character. I also believe that an important part of creating a really good character is giving them moral and psychological weaknesses and needs that are a meaningful part of the plot as a whole.

Say your plot is a heroine needs to defeat a dragon and save the prince, that can be an exciting story, but what really breathes life into it is to give the heroine weaknesses and needs that she must personally overcome in order to reach this goal. She's been betrayed by others, giving her an "I can do it myself attitude", but in order to defeat the dragon she must learn she needs others to help her. All of a sudden the story has to show how she finds others to help her in her task and slowly learn to trust them. She is terrified to use her magical abilities because it has gone out of control in the past, but now she needs to hone them and regain faith in herself and talents. Now the story has a try/fail cycle of her learning how to use her magic and not fear and despise it. I could go on....

Having a cocky and smarmy character can be entertaining, but if that's all there is to it, then meh. Having a cocky and smarmy character who uses it as a defence mechanism to stop others from getting too close, but then causes damage because of this attitude and makes them rethink who and what they are, well there's a character you invest in. Will they learn to trust others? Will they come out in the end with a better understanding or acceptance of who they are? Will they put aside the charade when the time comes and be honest? Those are the questions that get me to care about a character.

 

[TheCatholicCrow]

Yeah ^ I agree ... personality and the author's voice is a huge part of it (for me at least). I was recently critiquing a piece that has a fantastic plot but the character just didn't grab me. After scratching my head for a bit, I realized it was because everything was focused on the action and dialogue (he said/she said ... he did / she did) and even though it was written in the first person POV, I knew almost nothing about the POV character (no name or description even) ...

Personality is a huge part of it. If you look at Gillian Flynn's MC's, they're all (more or less) horrible people but they're fascinating and draw you in because they're clever and snarky with strong voices. Getting us inside of the MC's head can be more important than a list of the character's "likable" traits.

 

[Chessie]

What's your take on this? Do you have any tricks for making your reader care, or do you have any insights into how the bond between a reader and an imaginary character is established?

Hm. Well, maybe try to think about how you relate to characters in books? What sorts of clues, descriptions, slices of dialogue, and plot events stir your emotions? What causes reactions within you when reading a book? What genre elements are you most drawn to? (Put those preferences into your bag of writing tricks)

These are just a few questions to get you going.

 

[Chessie]

Yep, I've done a TON Of learning since then on this topic, as well as paying close attention when I'm reading. I don't just believe you can create characters readers are attached to. I think you should.

That post was about "save the cat" which I still feel is a very useful tool, if you want to create a character who is in the 'good' category. Save the Cat is a screen writing strategy where in the first scene you set it up so the character does 'something' heroic or selfless. This can be as basic as saving a cat (like Weaver's character in Alien) to something HUGE like confronting a child molester (as in the book I'm currently reading, Odd Thomas).

Other strategies include: Showing that someone cares for the character in some way. Showing that the character cares for someone in some way, showing the character make noble choices, showing the character be brave, etc. There are tons more. Giving them some sort of honerable quality right away.

Another strategy I use is making sure the character is pro-active. The character should be an active participant in their own story. I believe stories are about choices, not events. So in the first scene the character should be driven to make a choice, and when they make that choice it makes them interesting... WHY did they make that choice? What will that choice lead to? What sort of other choices will they make? All these questions get raised in the reader's head and they keep reading to see what sort of choices the character will make next. If random events are simply happening to the character and he is simply re-acting instead of acting, then the character will get 'boring' quickly.

There is so much more! But I'm out of time for this morning....

I love what you've said here. So much to think about.

 

[skip.knox]

There are a couple of angles ("couple" defined here as "three") on this (great thread, btw) that have not been mentioned. Here's one: vulnerable.

The character is young, or naive. The character suffers from some significant handicap, mental or physical (or magical!). Put such a person in peril and you create sympathy, always assuming the author writes well. One secondary (tertiary, really) character in my WIP is a young girl who befriends a Roman war dog. The two have to make their way across country that is overrun by thousands of goblins. It's easy to root for someone who is so obviously in danger.

Which brings me, not by coincidence, to the second point: seconds. As in, secondary characters. Most of the advice I see centers on the main characters of a story, but secondary characters are vital. They often provide points of connection for the reader precisely because they don't need to be as heroic (or funny, or whatever chief emotional points are held by the MC). Take a look at such characters and you may find ... well, I found it, anyway ... that the secondary characters are in fact not all that well-rounded, but despite or perhaps because of this they serve to throw the MC into new perspective.

Crafting those secondary characters is tricky business, from figuring out relationships to creating backstories to allotting just the right amount of on-stage time to them. The writing advice columns I've read to date seem to think that once I figure out how to write an MC, by reading that column, writing secondary and minor characters will follow by some inevitable logic. Or maybe they're just saving it for another blog post.

And finally, and there's this advice from my own limited experience: the best way to make readers care about the characters is for the author to care about the characters. I don't have to be in love with them. I don't need to know their whole life story, but there has to be something about them I connect with. Upon re-reads, I can spot the wooden ones every time. Zombies, shuffling on stage to deliver their lines, shuffling off again. In my WIP I have a couple of these who play fairly major roles. I keep them around, like dull guests at a party, hoping to find some reason to like them or even to hate them. At some point, I know, they must either come to life or they'll have to meet with a horrible accident in the back yard.

Just because I care doesn't mean you'll care. But if I don't care, there's no chance at all you will.

 

[TheCatholicCrow]

There are a couple of angles ("couple" defined here as "three") on this (great thread, btw) that have not been mentioned. Here's one: vulnerable.

the second point: seconds. As in, secondary characters. Most of the advice I see centers on the main characters of a story, but secondary characters are vital. They often provide points of connection for the reader precisely because they don't need to be as heroic (or funny, or whatever chief emotional points are held by the MC). Take a look at such characters and you may find ... well, I found it, anyway ... that the secondary characters are in fact not all that well-rounded, but despite or perhaps because of this they serve to throw the MC into new perspective.

Crafting those secondary characters is tricky business, from figuring out relationships to creating backstories to allotting just the right amount of on-stage time to them. The writing advice columns I've read to date seem to think that once I figure out how to write an MC, by reading that column, writing secondary and minor characters will follow by some inevitable logic. Or maybe they're just saving it for another blog post.

Just because I care doesn't mean you'll care. But if I don't care, there's no chance at all you will.

1.) YES! There's a fine line between being proactive and being OP... gotta find that balance. Where would Superman be without kryptonite? If there's not a possibility of failure, why should I care if the character succeeds?

2.) YES!!!!! There's an interview series that I love (maybe it's the Californian in me ... love our film culture!). Anyway, Judy Greer offered some phenomenal insight into the function of "the friend" (really any secondary character) and the role they play in balancing out the MC. It pretty much blew my mind. Should be less than 3 minutes ...
[video=youtube_share;vsKXCivLTsY]https://youtu.be/vsKXCivLTsY[/video]

3.) If you don't care about the story or characters it shows.

 

[Darkfantasy]

I research this and watched some Brandon Sanderson lectures. Here's what I learnt

But characters tend to fall into two groups:
Everyman (characters we can relate to because they are us) Like Bilbo and Frodo
Superman (characters we look up too because we'd like to be like them) spiderman, batman.

Readers like characters they share common interests or similarities with. Characters with depth, interesting thoughts and ideas.
Another good gimmick is to do the Watson and Sherlock thing. Sherlock is incredible quirky and weird but we like him because Watson likes him. So give the character some friends (even if they are the Villain) give them people that care about them.
Make them passionate - give them passions, goals and dreams outside the plotline. Spiderman has passions before he becomes spiderman. Peter wants to go on a date, wants to become a scientist. He's passionate about comic books. We all like people who are passionate this helps us connect. We think 'wow he's as passionate about Science as I am about reading/horses/swimming I can relate to that intense feeling'. And if you can give them multiple desire and passions that conflict that's all the better.
Something like this character really wants to be a dancer but she's over-weight and self conscious about her body size so will only dance in the solitude of her own bedroom. So give the character a life BEFORE the plot.

Other than that pay attention when you're reading or look at the characters from book you love and ask yourself why. Do some research on characters you know are popular with other people and try to figure out why so many people love them.

 

[Sheilawisz]

You know what is curious about characters?

We can describe them as best as possible and try various strategies to make them likeable, but in the end it all depends on the people that read the story. The connection happens when the reader finds something in the character that he or she particularly likes or identifies with, and since we all are different, pretty much any character will be liked by some readers and disliked by others.

I think that the best approach is to just let your characters be who they are, instead of trying to design them with the intentional idea of making them likeable. A character that starts boring may become very interesting as time passes, so the issues of character development and having patience are more important here.

Basically, I think it's important that the reader cares about the character and what happens to them, but how do you achieve this? Just don't worry about this. Your character will resonate with some of your readers by natural means, and at the same time, other readers will be attracted to some other characters or aspects of your story. We have no true control over this. You need to worry about telling the story, and allow the characters to develop and do their stuff.

What's your take on this? Do you have any tricks for making your reader care, or do you have any insights into how the bond between a reader and an imaginary character is established? You need a good story to tell, and accept that the bond you describe comes more from the interior of every person that reads the story than from anything you planned.

In any case, most people tend to identify with characters that display loads of emotions while cold blooded characters are in general much less liked. Also, certain themes like vengeance, courage in the face of great danger and coming of age are popular because they draw most people into the characters more easily.

Many other people bond with characters that simply are the most similar to them, easy as that.

In my story Winter Hollow, I bonded with Jennifer a lot because she is quite similar to me in many ways and also she represents one of my favorite personal fantasies. In the other hand, one of my readers felt a much stronger connection with Graham, who is Jennifer's father... It's not that one character is better than the other, it's just that they appeal to people with different feelings and different views of the world.

 

[Charles Parkes]

Few people would pick up The Village of the Happy People, but The Village of the Damned...well

I'll admit I'm finding 'The Village of the Happy People' intriguing (it sounds a bit like 'The Prisoner' tv series from the late 60s).

Nice points about identification despite deviousness. I think I've seen this broken most spectacularly through acts of cruelty - towards animals or those seen as innocent being the main guilty parties.

In Interactive Fiction authors often force a link between the reader and the main character through use of the first person. I've seen this done well, and done badly, but in less specific fiction - generally readers will often identify with a character when they've been through a lot with them (Tyrion in Game of Thrones). I'd say avoiding acts of stupidity can often help in this regard too.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

I'm with Sheila a bit... don't worry about it, until readers say something. If a few mention it, then really dig deep.

Save the cat, shoot the dog... Oh, the Outlaw Josey Wales, heh heh, one of my favorite flicks from childhood. So many ways but, the main thing as others have said is you the writer must care. If you care, then it's at least got hope. Once you care, then you need to make sure you are actually showing the things you care about, those things that make the character relatable.

 

[Svrtnsse]

I think that the best approach is to just let your characters be who they are, instead of trying to design them with the intentional idea of making them likeable. A character that starts boring may become very interesting as time passes, so the issues of character development and having patience are more important here.

I hear you. Characters do change and grow as their stories progress.
Designing a character to fulfil a certain role is a bit different from trying to create an emotional attachment between the characters though. I'm not trying to figure out how to design a character so that it will be compelling to a certain demographic in order to sell more books.

( I changed the bits you put in italics into bold to keep them apart. )

Basically, I think it's important that the reader cares about the character and what happens to them, but how do you achieve this? Just don't worry about this. Your character will resonate with some of your readers by natural means, and at the same time, other readers will be attracted to some other characters or aspects of your story. We have no true control over this. You need to worry about telling the story, and allow the characters to develop and do their stuff.

But I want to worry about this.
Well, worry might be the wrong word, but it's something I find interesting and that I like to muse on. I'm not sure I agree completely about the true control part. To a certain extent I agree, because we can't really control what one person likes about another - and our characters are persons.
What we can do is skew the reader's bias in one direction or another. We can put a character in a situation where their positive attributes shine, and we can put them in situations where their bad ones show through. We can let another character's opinions about someone else shine through and we can let that influence the reader.
I think there are tons of little tricks that can be used to tweak a reader's attitude towards something, regardless of whether it's a character or a concept.

Maybe the question instead is if we should?

That's the kind of thing that will vary from person to person like some kind of moral dilemma. Do I show the characters exactly as I perceive them to be, or do I want to highlight certain aspects of them?

What's your take on this? Do you have any tricks for making your reader care, or do you have any insights into how the bond between a reader and an imaginary character is established? You need a good story to tell, and accept that the bond you describe comes more from the interior of every person that reads the story than from anything you planned.

This is a really good point, and one I completely missed. However, it's very similar to how I feel about descriptions. I can't fully describe something and I can't completely communicate something that I see in my mind to the reader. I have to accept that there are differences and instead try make sure that at least the main points come through.
There are things I can control, and there are things I can't. The tricky bit is to figure out which of the pieces that I can control that I also want to control.

In my story Winter Hollow, I bonded with Jennifer a lot because she is quite similar to me in many ways and also she represents one of my favorite personal fantasies. In the other hand, one of my readers felt a much stronger connection with Graham, who is Jennifer's father... It's not that one character is better than the other, it's just that they appeal to people with different feelings and different views of the world.

I had a similar thing happen to me in my current story. The main character and her assistant aren't on the best of terms and they keep snapping at each other. I tried to portray him as a bit of a jerk, and then my beta reader asked me why the MC was so mean to her assistant.

 

[Nomadica]

Even ordinary people have odd things about them. If they don't have at least one odd trait they may not be that ordinary. A slightly odd fetish that he is shy to talk to his lover about perhaps? People relate to odd trait because everyone has them. It helps them connect to the deeper more intimate aspect of the MC, not just the mundane public mask.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I'll take an opposite stance from those who are against character design and say that I believe we should make conscious choices about characters. We should study archetypes. We should study why certain characters resonate so well with readers over generations. We should think actively about the roles they fill.

I understand that some things will develop organically, but I'd rather design my characters to fulfill a specific role, a role the story needs, & I see nothing wrong with that approach. I desire a varied cast with depth. The best way to ensure that variety and depth is to take a close look at traits, personalities, everything that makes a character well rounded, before tossing them into the fire.

Readers can, and often do, like even the unlikeable characters. So, I think it has less to do with worrying about readers finding characters relatable than it is about making characters interesting, but with qualities or traits the vast majority of people will identify with, not just might identify with. Even if it's a solitary trait they find relatable.

There's is a degree of control with character design and the events you place characters into. If your story is executed well, that won't feel artificial. All fiction, after all, is created by the author. It is, in essence, artificial.

One thing about the study of archetypes is that it can enlighten you on the intricacies of character. Further, it doesn't force your characters into predefined molds. Anyone who's studied archetypes enough would understand that the possibilities for combining traits is nearly infinite.

 

[Chessie]

I'll take an opposite stance from those who are against character design and say that I believe we should make conscious choices about characters. We should study archetypes. We should study why certain characters resonate so well with readers over generations. We should think actively about the roles they fill.

I understand that some things will develop organically, but I'd rather design my characters to fulfill a specific role, a role the story needs, & I see nothing wrong with that approach. I desire a varied cast with depth. The best way to ensure that variety and depth is to take a close look at traits, personalities, everything that makes a character well rounded, before tossing them into the fire.

Readers can, and often do, like even the unlikeable characters. So, I think it has less to do with worrying about readers finding characters relatable than it is about making characters interesting, but with qualities or traits the vast majority of people will identify with, not just might identify with. Even if it's a solitary trait they find relatable.

There's is a degree of control with character design and the events you place characters into. If your story is executed well, that won't feel artificial. All fiction, after all, is created by the author. It is, in essence, artificial.

One thing about the study of archetypes is that it can enlighten you on the intricacies of character. Further, it doesn't force your characters into predefined molds. Anyone who's studied archetypes enough would understand that the possibilities for combining traits is nearly infinite.

I'm digging your post, T.Allen. Archetypes/tropes are SO so so important to keep in mind when writing a book that you want to sell. I think there's definitely a difference between writing just for the fun of it and writing with an audience in mind. I'd say most writers want or prefer to have an audience, too. And archetypes are what readers look for like the step onto the magic carpet that's about to take them for a ride. They rely on them.

The part in bold...I've found that betas in the past have liked my bad guys as much as the good ones. To me, this says that readers are forgiving, intelligent, and perceptive. They know the mean characters are there for a reason and latch on to them out of curiosity as well. At least that's my take.