What is a "strong" character?

[Scribble]

I agree. Strength doesn't have to be "heroic."

I just tricked you guys into becoming evil!

Arguably this sort of thing by definition only really fits in grey or dark fantasy. I suppose that's where my interests lie.

"People with courage and character always seem sinister to the rest."
~Hermann Hesse

 

[A. E. Lowan]

Oh, baby, I was evil WAY before you got here.

 

[Weaver]

"I was corrupt before I had power, and rich is better."

 

[The Dark One]

I think I disagree with most of this discussion. The question was about a 'strong character', yet most of the discussion has been about defining strength.

A strong 'character' can be pathetically weak in any way you can imagine, but still strong as a motivating force within the story.

Conversely, a character with all the wonderful characteristics listed above may be as boring as hell on paper and doesn't kick the plot along at all.

Strong 'characters' make things happen in your story, and not just the actions they perform themselves.

 

[wordwalker]

Here's an idea I like that brings some of this together:

Take a character and the challenge he faces-- or better yet several challenges, a combination from the different parts of his place in life and the world. Then, have him run up against EVERY kind of obstacle those present. Not every last thing that could go wrong, but as wide a variety of them as you have room to represent while doing most of them justice.

I think that variety itself makes a powerful statement. If the character's strong and heroic (or epically tragic, or other variations), it means a lot to show him struggling through the different skills for leading soldiers and giving speeches and repairing roofs and making long marches and making children laugh and finding the good in old enemies and choosing between love and duty and... That is, if the story does any justice to how trying to handle so many kinds of things is, and how at least a few probably fail and change his plans. The more widely an epic touches base beyond "always use the sword," the more it builds the sense that the character's moving beyond any comfort zone of himself or the writer, and that he really is existing in his world and deserves to win. Not that that win is guaranteed, of course.

If the character and story are smaller scale... SAME THING. Even a "slice of life" is about rooting the reader in the midst of so many different things the MC has to deal with, with whatever varying outcomes they have, but that variety of challenges is still a big part of making even the weakest character make a strong impression. As it could be for anything on the scale in between.

Or, that's one way I like to look at it.

 

[Chessie]

Wordwalker, I really like the way you put that. So would you give the mc challenges to face aside from the one related to the main plot, correct? Let's say like a couple more?

I agree that a strong character is one that drives excitement in the story. Its the person whose pov you anticipate when turning the pages. Someone that is affected by their choices (thus affecting other characters and the overall plot) and grows from the experience while pushing the author to a new edge.

 

[The Dark One]

My book that comes out in August (not fantasy...about half of what I do is sort-of fantastical) will be quite a challenge for some readers. The MC is (I believe) an incredibly strong character, but he's not very nice. He's rich, very smart, extremely arrogant and has nothing but contempt for his fellow man. And it's a first person narrative so we're in his (Morgen's) head most of the time.

Complicating matters is the fact that the story is also being told from the perspective of a detective in charge of a serial killer investigation and the reader must eventually begin to wonder...

Morgen would meet few of the definitions of 'strong' on this thread but by god he's a powerful character.

 

[wordwalker]

So would you give the mc challenges to face aside from the one related to the main plot, correct? Let's say like a couple more?

Certainly. It depends on the sense of how focused the story is on a few things, but having a few challenges outside the main one can broaden the story a lot, and make it about the character as a whole rather than just "Can he win this quest?" And the specific trick is, whether it's one mission or many competing goals, play up how different moments call for him mastering whole different skills or perspectives or making completely different choices, so that by the end he's earned his victory in as many ways as possible.

And Chesterama, Dark One, great points there. Letting the plot change the character is a big part of it all. Or, playing up how much the character's different from the average reader-- dangit, now you've got me curious, Dark...

 

[brokethepoint]

The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows. It's a very mean and nasty place and I don't care how tough you are it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain't about how hard ya hit. It's about how hard you can get it and keep moving forward. How much you can take and keep moving forward.

Rocky Balboa

 

[Weaver]

I think I disagree with most of this discussion. The question was about a 'strong character', yet most of the discussion has been about defining strength.

A strong 'character' can be pathetically weak in any way you can imagine, but still strong as a motivating force within the story.

Conversely, a character with all the wonderful characteristics listed above may be as boring as hell on paper and doesn't kick the plot along at all.

Strong 'characters' make things happen in your story, and not just the actions they perform themselves.

As the person who posted the original question, I believe I have a right to say you're incorrect about the point of the discussion.

I did not ask 'what makes for a good PoV character?" or 'what kind of character do people like to read about?' or 'what kinhd of character moves a story?' (These are all valid questions -- they're just not the one I asked.) I DID ask for responses defining "strength" as a trait.

 

[Scribble]

As the person who posted the original question, I believe I have a right to say you're incorrect about the point of the discussion.

I did not ask 'what makes for a good PoV character?" or 'what kind of character do people like to read about?' or 'what kinhd of character moves a story?' (These are all valid questions -- they're just not the one I asked.) I DID ask for responses defining "strength" as a trait.

I can't argue with your desire to find a different kind of answer, but I actually found this was one of the most insightful responses in the thread! Maybe I am not understanding the question.

Are you looking for a character who possesses strengths (in the positive sense) and what those attributes are (ex: courage), or are you looking for what makes a strong character (strong within the context of the story, they move things along)?

I'm thinking about Gollum as an example here. He's pitiful in almost every way. He lacks just about every redeeming quality you could imagine. Except for a brief interlude where the fearful side of him seems to appreciate, he is reprehensible. He has arguably no "human" strengths: he is a slave to the ring. His defining characteristic is a burning desire for it.

I suppose you could argue that he has strengths of a sort: cunning, deceit, ability to murder. Not positive elements, to be sure, but I would accept that as a counter.

Even so, I would not be easily convinced that Gollum is a weak character. Most of the characters in Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men are full of weakness, most do not escape their subordinate roles, yet they all move the story along.

Comment? Clarify?

 

[Weaver]

I can't argue with your desire to find a different kind of answer, but I actually found this was one of the most insightful responses in the thread! Maybe I am not understanding the question.

I only responded to somepne saying 'Don't talk about what strength is -- this thread is about what makes an interesting character' because that is not the case. I like seeing the side discussions, too, but I don't like seeing posters get reprimanded for answering my question. *shrug*

Are you looking for a character who possesses strengths (in the positive sense) and what those attributes are (ex: courage), or are you looking for what makes a strong character (strong within the context of the story, they move things along)?

Sorry -- I thought I'd clarified that somewhere toward the beginning of the thread. I'm asking for opinions on what traits are seen as "strong" -- personality-wise -- for story characters. To use generic examples, 'someone who has a lot of bad stuff happen to them and doesn't break' or 'someone who knows his/her own mind and self.' I don't think that these kinds of traits are necessary for a workable PoV character, or even for a secondary character who moves the plot -- we've all seen stories where a "weak" character is essential to make something happen -- just an explanation of what is meant when people start talking about 'this character is strong' versus 'this character is not strong.'

Your examples -- Gollum lacks positive traits, but he does have strengths -- make a lot of sense. I certainly never wanted to imply that only the shining hero gets to be a strong person! (The parallel to that would be that a not-strong person must be a villain or totally useless, and I really don't want to see the world that way, being a very not-strong person myself.) There are many characteristics that, depending on how they are applied to events, could be positive or negative but always strengths of a sort. (The ability to murder, a negative trait, could be in another person the ability to kill in order to protect one's children. And high intelligence gets layered onto characters through the full moral spectrum: the evil genius, the nerd who's trying to do the right thing, the godlike hero...)

I do appreciate you asking for clarification -- lets me know when I've been unclear, so I can try to fix that.

 

[Scribble]

That's perfect, I see what you mean. This is a great discussion! I missed the point about traits, so we were off in the weeds a bit. Still stimulating talk.

Something struck me in your comments - that "polarity of opposites" aspect in character building. There may be a better term I am forgetting/unaware of. This is where something negative in past experience expresses as a positive character strength.

An ex-thief, who has faced in his conscience the cost of his actions on people and their sense of security, has a heightened sense of justice and property than the person who never crossed the line.

Someone who has seen too much killing, turns around and becomes a pacifist. It serves to give them the determination to find the courage to stand against violence in a peaceful way.

I do still think that strengths are absolutely subjective, particularly in terms of moral preferences. What one might see as weakness, another might see as a strength.

Things get a bit twisted around in a dystopian world. In 1984, Winston is against Big Brother. In terms of the state he's a traitor, secretive, he lies, he breaks laws. He makes a hard choice, to follow a path he knows will lead to no good. These things he does are in the context of his society horrible things, but in his world and in the character we see them as virtues. The virtue is that he is different and free in his mind in an oppressive world. Give those attributes to someone in a peaceful world, and they become reprehensible.

It seems as though moral courage (subjective in the framework) is the key. It doesn't necessarily mean doing the right thing, but it means doing the hard thing. Out of this meandering I come to a definition:

A character's strengths are born in adversity and they grow through making hard choices.

 

[Addison]

I have found the strongest characters to be flawed characters. Because throughout the story they're struggling to overcome their flaw(s), which in some way connects to the overall story. It can also make for a suspense factor seeing as, at the end, in order for the hero to succeed they must overcome their flaw.

For example, Frodo Baggins' flaw at the end is that he's become attached to the ring, yet it must be destroyed or his friends will die. He succumbs to the power, puts on the ring. Gollum bites it off, they fight and Gollum and the ring are destroyed. Frodo could have let go, followed the ring but he goes with Sam. The naive Shire-folk went through numerous trials, succumbed to evil and pulled through at the end.

So yes, a strong character is one who is flawed yet lives with that flaw, using it or being hindered by it, all the way to the climax.

 

[skip.knox]

One suggestion to add to the conversation here. If the character is strong, make him strong in relation to the other characters. They try to break down a door, then he breaks it down. It can be a small task or a large one, but having him act in context with the other characters will let you show his strength. It might also be worth showing its limits. Maybe he tries to lift something but can't quite. You can make the thing as big or small as you see fit. Then, later in the story, if he needs to do something superhuman, you could have him lift something just as heavy. Having a hero exceed himself is usually a good moment.