Sticking with characters.

[Joeski]

I recently discovered that I have a strong habit of introducing a new character (and problem) with almost every chapter, and then by the end of the chapter my protagonist generally solves the problem and then moves on on their own.

I've just got to chapter 7 of a new 'Hero's Journey' style fantasy novel i've been writing and am trying to keep the character I introduced around for a while so we'll see how it goes.

In my last children's novel I did the same thing introducing characters throughout and then brought them all together at the end and so just now I have realised that it is a real habit of mine.

Is this something that other people find themselves doing and/or does anybody have thoughts on it?

 

[pmmg]

Well...the list of characters does expand as the story grows. But I am not in a habit of introducing one every chapter. And of course, as we move towards the end, its best to stop that practice so it can end . I do, on occasion, have characters appear and take on a role i had not expected. Some bit character who all of a sudden has a big role and become a strong story line. That feels organic to me.

The question is really, is this a problem? Do you feel this is hurting your work or your process? Cause, it could just be more of happy accidents, and less of mistakes.

 

[Mad Swede]

I recently discovered that I have a strong habit of introducing a new character (and problem) with almost every chapter, and then by the end of the chapter my protagonist generally solves the problem and then moves on on their own.

I've just got to chapter 7 of a new 'Hero's Journey' style fantasy novel i've been writing and am trying to keep the character I introduced around for a while so we'll see how it goes.

In my last children's novel I did the same thing introducing characters throughout and then brought them all together at the end and so just now I have realised that it is a real habit of mine.

Is this something that other people find themselves doing and/or does anybody have thoughts on it?

To me that results in a very episodic story and I don't do that myself. There are only a few significant characters in my books and short stories who appear once, most reappear or are referred to in other stories. Even background characters can appear several times, particularly if they are named. It's just the way I write.

 

[pmmg]

To me that results in a very episodic story and I don't do that myself. There are only a few significant characters in my books and short stories who appear once, most reappear or are referred to in other stories. Even background characters can appear several times, particularly if they are named. It's just the way I write.

Getting named in my stories is not a blessing. Usually means bad stuff is going to happen to you.

 

[Mad Swede]

Getting named in my stories is not a blessing. Usually means bad stuff is going to happen to you.

I didn't say it was always a good thing...

 

[Ban]

My casts tend to be narrow, with one to three main characters and a couple more recurring characters. I tend to leave all others unnamed. Working with a more expansive cast could be fun, even if the majority would end up being bit characters. There is something to play around with there, though I'd worry that my audience would forget the names of the important players if I'd suffocate them with all-in-all inconsequential characters.

 

[JBCrowson]

I find myself keeping a separate list of every character that appears, and I generally name them, as a convenient label: "John Smith" rather than "the guy who was sat at the bar in the tavern before the fight broke out". I tend to gravitate when reading to books with multiple POV, and so I find myself writing that way, as I try to write stuff I would want to read.