Writing Characters the Reader Cares About….

[Heliotrope]

Lately I've been reading a lot about characterization. I really feel like without great, deep, strong characterization our stories have nothing to hold them up. We can have amazing plot twists and strong narrative, but without strong characters those will fall flat.

I've been reading about the importance of establishing a character that the reader cares about as soon as possible in the first scene, and ideally in the first paragraph. Here are some quotes:

"Young authors are often encouraged to begin with action. The theory is that if you throw an obvious protagonist into a harrowing situation, the reader will love him just because he’s in trouble. Not so. Someone in trouble may elicit a sympathetic response from me on a surface level. But to make me really concerned about what happens to this person, I first have to care about him.

Let’s say we pick up a story that begins in the middle of a fistfight. Probably we will be at least marginally interested in what the fight is about. But we aren’t going to particularly care who wins the fight unless we care about one of the contestants. Beginning the story with a fistfight is definitely a good idea (as opposed to, say, opening with the protagonist warming up before the fight), but unless you throw in a reason to make the reader care, you’re probably sunk.

For years, I struggled with the idea of adding narrative to my openings. The “call to action,” as it were, became a major stumbling block. My gut kept telling me I needed to introduce a character, not an event. I fought the idea, thinking I’d lose the reader’s attention if I slowed down long enough to sketch a few important details about the protagonist. But it dawned on me, as I pondered this question, that I had never been turned off by a few artfully placed paragraphs of narrative in a beginning’s opening. In fact, it was the straight action openings that completely turned me off.

Don’t get me wrong: action (aka conflict) and suspense is the heart of any story and definitely an essential factor in a successful beginning. But, without a strong character introduction, action isn’t going to be worth very much by itself.

This one facet of the beginning is the single most important factor, not just in opening a story, but in setting the tone for the entirety of the tale to follow." (Weiland, K.M. Crafting Unforgettable Characters.)



"So, what are the qualities that we need to see in action in order for us to care? Everyman and Everywoman protagonists need to show us a hint of why they are not just like us, but that they're exceptional. We need to see in them something strong and good. In the screenwriting business they call this 'save the cat' but a demonstration of admirable qualities can happen in many ways."

He offers the suggestion to think of people in real life you really admire. Thing about why you like spending time with them. Are they funny? Are they passionate? Are they romantic (Rick Riordan uses this to great success with his character Percy who spends the entire first few paragraphs telling us how beautiful and perfect his girlfriend is. He is in love. A redeeming quality.) Are they compassionate? Do they try to look after others? Try to think of a redeeming quality in your character and show it in the first few paragraphs. Something to make the reader think, "Ok, this guy is an ok guy. I like this guy.'

"Have you ever read a published novel only to find yourself feeling indifferent about the character whose journey you're being asked to take? If so, then you see what I mean. Emotional bonding doesn't come from sympathy, perfection, or fantasy fulfilment, but from feeling that a character is worthy of our devotion ( Maas, Donald, Writing 21st Century Fiction. pg 81)."

So after reading these books I have started to pay more attention to how this is done (particularly in movies, because my husband watches a lot of movies while I'm writing).

So I thought it would be helpful for us to collaborate and write a list of where we have seen 'save the cat' moments established early on in movies/fiction so that we can utilize those same strategies in our own writing, and therefore develop more sympathetic characters early on.

 

[Heliotrope]

My Examples:

Collateral The protagonist is an everyman cab driver. Within the first few moments of the film we see him staring at a postcard image of mexico (or Hawaii?) that he keeps in the visor of his car. We see that he has hopes and dreams of becoming a limo company owner, and he fantasizes about taking vacations he can never afford. These key personality traits early on give us the 'awwww' factor and we open our hearts to him.

Captain Phillips In the very first scene in the film Tom Hanks speaks about his almost grown children in the car with his wife, and tells her how he is worried about them growing up in a much more dangerous world than they did. We see his compassion for his family, his love for his children and his concern about the direction the world is going. All redeeming qualities that again, allow us to open our hearts to him. (This also raises the personal stakes of the character)

Hidalgo In the very first scene we see Vigo Mortensen calling his horse "little brother" symbolizing the affectionate relationship he has with him. He is a 'family member'. This is compared to the other contestant in the race who's horse is "Senator". When Vigo catches up with the other racer he is jovial, saying "Good morning! Lovely morning isn't it?" We see that this is a friendly cowboy with a deep connection to his horse.

 

[FifthView]

I'll begin with the last movie I watched. A couple days ago, flipping through Netflix, I saw that Nightcrawler was available. I'd caught brief comments about it in various forums, so I thought it might be interesting to watch. It was. But the character Louis Bloom, played by Jake Gyllenhaal, wasn't introduced as a particularly sympathetic character. Sure, he seemed a little down on his luck, a little desperate. But he also attacks a security guard and steals that man's watch in the very first scene, and then in the next scene he's this creepy guy using that pseudo-intellectual babble meant to confuse/manipulate/trick the guy to whom he's trying to sell stolen property and from whom he asks for a job. The guy isn't tricked and basically says, "I don't hire thieves." And I know for my part, I identified with that man far more than I did with Louis Bloom.

The point: A character that is particularly odd, even creepy, can still fascinate. Louis Bloom was creepy throughout—basically, a psychopath—but remained fascinating. The "promise" of this character was this: I kept waiting to see how he'd spiral out of control and fail. Surely fate had something in store for him, and I wanted to discover what fate might do. I wanted to see it play out. But I'm not going to spoil the movie here by going deeply into that.

Another point: The whole thing was largely "show," not "tell." We didn't have to be told what Louis Bloom was like, or his history (in fact, nothing of his history was revealed, only implications that he'd been pretty much the same his whole life.) And it began with action and never really stopped, even if it wasn't the sort of action of a high-octane action-adventure blockbuster—mostly. Jake Gyllenhaal's acting was some of the best I've ever seen on screen, so this helped; I could imagine some unknown, less experienced actor taking on the role and causing the whole movie to either fail or at least end up being only mediocre.

It is possible, probably desirable most of the time, to give hints of a character's character while in the midst of action. How he acts or reacts, the odd or unusual way he carries himself or comments briefly on something, even a glance here or there will show what motivates him. This can be interspersed within the action and doesn't need a lot of words strung together to make it happen.

I want to point out another thing, since we are talking about beginnings and so the nearby thread of "Show, Don't Tell" is still in my mind and I had thought of mentioning something there that also relates to this. In one episode of Writing Excuses, a guest participant made the comment that movies and written fiction are different in one key way that some new writers don't see.

In movies, it's common to start out the movie and even individual scenes with an "establishing shot." The camera takes in the environment, maybe can follow a character around while he's doing some activity or even unexplained things, before eventually zooming in and getting down to the action in the scene.

But in fiction, most of the time we need to do the opposite. The key activity, the key draw (what is drawing the character forward), the key item in the environment or aspect of the environment—whatever has the character's attention or else displays the character's motivation in some way—should be hit first, and then all the ancillary observations and considerations should follow. Or, the key activity should be first. So, instead of spending words describing the environment or the character or his reason for being "here and now," at the outset—i.e., instead of establishing the shot—we should usually start with whatever is key and then develop from that. This goes for individual paragraphs especially but also, I think, often works for the larger structure of a scene. I think that this approach generally will help readers get into the head of the MC; it is one way to strengthen a close 3rd-person development. (The character is not usually standing around taking in the whole environment, i.e., getting an establishing shot, but already has a focus of some sort. This doesn't mean that characters never take a step back, however.)

 

[Heliotrope]

I totally agree about the difference between fiction and movies for sure. I think it's just sometimes easier to reference movies because I know I watch more movies than read books. They are just quicker, done in 2 hours in the evening, so I tend to pick them apart more.

As far as weird MC's, yes, I get that. Ebenezer Scrooge comes to mind. Or Scarlet O'hara. Hardly redeeming characters at first glance, but exactly as you said, you sort of want to watch them fall.

As far as I remember though, doesn't Jake Gyllenhal's character sort of redeem himself eventually?

 

[Heliotrope]

It is possible, probably desirable most of the time, to give hints of a character's character while in the midst of action. How he acts or reacts, the odd or unusual way he carries himself or comments briefly on something, even a glance here or there will show what motivates him. This can be interspersed within the action and doesn't need a lot of words strung together to make it happen.

This I agree with 100%. It doesn't have to be a few long drawn out paragraphs. It can be a short sentence, just a glimpse at their character. I know that I don't do this enough though. I get caught up in action and forget to give the reader a clue of who this person is. I know the character. But I forget that the reader doesn't love them and find them as intriguing as I do right off the bat.

 

[FifthView]

As far as I remember though, doesn't Jake Gyllenhal's character sort of redeem himself eventually?

Nope. At least, not to me. But he's like a carnivorous dinosaur: Would never want to meet one, would never want one anywhere near my family, yadda yadda yadda, but still a fascinating creature.

 

[Heliotrope]

But in fiction, most of the time we need to do the opposite. The key activity, the key draw (what is drawing the character forward), the key item in the environment or aspect of the environment—whatever has the character's attention or else displays the character's motivation in some way—should be hit first, and then all the ancillary observations and considerations should follow. Or, the key activity should be first. So, instead of spending words describing the environment or the character or his reason for being "here and now," at the outset—i.e., instead of establishing the shot—we should usually start with whatever is key and then develop from that. This goes for individual paragraphs especially but also, I think, often works for the larger structure of a scene. I think that this approach generally will help readers get into the head of the MC; it is one way to strengthen a close 3rd-person development. (The character is not usually standing around taking in the whole environment, i.e., getting an establishing shot, but already has a focus of some sort. This doesn't mean that characters never take a step back, however.)

I'm sort of starting to wonder about this though. I mean, I agree, because it is what we have been taught, but I'm just not seeing it practiced in successful fiction… Or maybe I am, we are just seeing it differently? Correct me if I'm way off base:

The Last Olympian, Rick Riordan

The end of the world started when a pagasus landed on the hood of my car.

Up until then, I was having a great afternoon Technically I wasn't supposed to be driving because I wouldn't turn sixteen for another week, but my mom and stepdad, Paul, took my friend Rachel and me to this private stretch of beach on the South Shore, and Paul let us borrow his Prius for a short spin.

Now, I Know what you're thinking, Wow, that was really irresponsible of him, blah, blah, blah, blah, but Paul knows me pretty well. He's seen me slice up demons and leap out of exploding school buildings…

Dean Koontz, Odd Thomas

My name is Odd Thomas, though in this age when fame is the alter at which most people worship, I am not sure why you should care who I am or why I exist.

I am not a celebrity. I am not the child of a celebrity. I have never been married to, never been abused by, and never provided a kidney for transplantation to a celebrity. Furthermore, I have no desire to be a celebrity.

CS Lewis, Voyage of the Dawn Treader

"There was a boy called Eustace Clarence Scrubb, and he almost deserved it."

*Obviously old example, but still…


Basically, what I'm seeing (and of course there are exceptions) is that a lot of successful books start out with establishing the character first, and then get to the action, and the reading I've been doing seems to confirm this strategy.

Thoughts?

 

[FifthView]

Eh, a full disclosure I suppose, concerning the beginning of Nightcrawler. The more I've been thinking about it, the more I've realized that, at first (first three scenes especially), there was a little doubt about whether the character might just be one of those rapscallion anti-hero types: kinda clever, living by the seat of his pants, etc. So as far as being a draw for the viewer, leaving open his characterization might have allowed for a sort of grudging respect without solidifying any distaste for him. But as the movie continued to play out....I think, as with my dinosaur metaphor above, the respect wasn't entirely lost but one can respect a t-rex without much liking a t-rex or while actively disliking him.

 

[FifthView]

Basically, what I'm seeing (and of course there are exceptions) is that a lot of successful books start out with establishing the character first, and then get to the action, and the reading I've been doing seems to confirm this strategy.

OR maybe those are examples of hitting the key information first? I.e., we aren't treated with a couple paragraphs describing the milieu.*

The end of the world started when a pagasus landed on the hood of my car.

This is jumping right into the heart of things. And then there's a little stepping back from it.

But I also wonder if 1st-person accounts in which the character is extremely focused on himself at the beginning might fall under the category of "whatever has the character's attention or else displays the character's motivation in some way" that I mentioned. Especially when the characters are younger. Basically, "Something happened; but first, to understand this, you need to know about me" because the "me" is a focal point, a very important point, for the narrator.

*Edit: I mean, introductory exposition. I'll have to think over these, because I do think that 1st-person narration is quite a bit different from 3rd-person narrative—much of the time.

 

[Heliotrope]

Eh, a full disclosure I suppose, concerning the beginning of Nightcrawler. The more I've been thinking about it, the more I've realized that, at first (first three scenes especially), there was a little doubt about whether the character might just be one of those rapscallion anti-hero types: kinda clever, living by the seat of his pants, etc. So as far as being a draw for the viewer, leaving open his characterization might have allowed for a sort of grudging respect without solidifying any distaste for him. But as the movie continued to play out....I think, as with my dinosaur metaphor above, the respect wasn't entirely lost but one can respect a t-rex without much liking a t-rex or while actively disliking him.

Right? I was just thinking about Ebenezer and Scarlet as well.

With Ebenezer we start by learning that the only person he ever cared about is dead (Marley) so even if we don't like him we begrudgingly sympathize with him.

With Scarlet we learn of her deep rooted love for Ashley Wilkes, so again, even if we don't like her we can begrudgingly respect her passionate feelings… and feel bad for her when Ashely is engaged to someone else.

 

[Heliotrope]

With other anti heroes (Tyler Durden) we can admire that they are doing something we wish that we could do, on a basic human level (shirking responsibility, anarchy against authority etc…)

 

[FifthView]

With other anti heroes (Tyler Durden) we can admire that they are doing something we wish that we could do, on a basic human level (shirking responsibility, anarchy against authority etc…)

I agree. I don't think I'd call the character from Nightcrawler an anti-hero, although at first that impression was left as a possibility. But the fact that he proved so proficient in his pursuits was something that could inspire a grudging respect.

 

[Heliotrope]

Ok, just watched the beginning of Night crawler. I think there are a few things in the first 5 minutes that make the character 'likeable'.

Like you said, he is smart, quick, appears to have good people skills. I think his general demeanour also makes him 'non-threatening' even though he could take that security guard down no problem. He is skinny, kind of geeky voice, greasy combed hair. He looks like a computer nerd which is what makes his character so intriguing. Plus, he is selling stolen construction materials, which is funny!

Willing to negotiate "I'm willing to take less to establish a good working relationship."

Soft spoken and polite "Excuse me sir, I'm looking for a job… I'm a hard worker, I set high goals, and I've been told that I'm persistent. Now, I'm not fooling myself (self depreciation, always a good way to deliver a likeable character) sir, having been raised with the self esteem movement so popular in schools (funny again!)… Good things come to those who work their asses off…" etc etc etc.

Even if this is all a scam, he is still immediately likeable, and you feel for him when the guy won't give him the job.

"I'm not hiring a f-ing theif." He looked so wounded then! He tried to keep a straight face, but you could see in his eyes he was hurt. He wants respect. He wants to be a good guy.

Oh! My heart broke for him then!

 

[FifthView]

Hah well he wasn't immediately likeable for me. From the start of that sequence I thought he was quite transparent: he'd say anything, and could say anything, to get what he wants.

I actually did agree with the other guy and already suspected that guy would say no to his request for a job, for the same reason. Not hiring a thief.

 

[Heliotrope]

Ok, here are some contemporary examples from fiction of 'character first, action second':

Torment, Lauren Kate (Fallen Series)

"Daniel stared out at the bay. His eyes were grey as the thick fog enveloping the Sausalito shoreline, as the choppy water lapping the pebble beach beneath his feet. There was no violet in his eyes now at all; he could feel it. She was too far away.

He braced himself against the biting gale off the water. But even as he tugged his thick black pea coat closer, he knew it was no use. Hunting always left him cold.

Only one thing could warm him today, and she was out of reach. He missed the way the crown of her head made the perfect resting spot for his lips. He imaged filling the circle of his arms with her body, leaning down to kiss her neck. But it was a good thing Luce couldn't be here now. What she'd see would horrify her."

Awwwwwww, he loves her and wishes he could protect her from all the terrible horrors of the world. What a heroic guy.

Suzanne Collins, Mockingjay

I stare down at my shoes, watching a fine layer of ash settle on the worn leather. This is where the bed I shared with my sister, Prim, stood.

She is remembering her sister, who she used to be so close too, both physically and emotionally)


George RR Martin, Clash of Kings

"…When first he came to Dragonstone, the army of stone grotesques had made him uneasy, but as the years passed he had grown used to them. Now he thought of them as old friends. The three of them watched the sky together with foreboding…"

Even the old Measter used to be afraid. He has come to love Dragonstone, right down to the stone statues, which he sees as his friends in a world where friends are scarce.

Anyone else have examples of where they see this immediate attempt to make the character 'likeable, relatable, admirable' in the first page before getting into any serious action?

 

[FifthView]

Here's the transcript for that episode of Writing Excuses. It's an episode dealing with first pages. An excerpt:

[Howard] I’ve found a lot… I’ve talked about this technique before. Often, the way in which we present information in paragraphs, in pages, is upside down. We will write the things that we think needed to be written first, and then we work our way down to something specific. Often, what I’ll do, just to see if I’m… Just to see if I wrote it wrong is I will flip it upside down. I’ll take the last sentence of the paragraph and put it as the first sentence, and treat everything else as something that stands in support of that first sentence. I do this at varying points throughout the prose to see if what I was doing was in fact writing my way up to that piece of pith that summed everything up well. It’s a lot of fun, and often what I find is that that last line that needed to be the first line is actually the thing that the character is noticing first, the thing that the reader would in fact notice first. Everything else is the stuff that you notice second and third, that stands in support of that first key thing.

[Mary] One of the interesting things about the way we notice information, particularly when it’s written, is that the first thing you list is the first thing the character notices, and the last thing you list is the thing they linger on. But all the stuff in the middle? It is kind of just there for set dressing. So a lot of times, that’s one of the reasons that your first page or first line will go wrong, is because you’ve got stuff… You’ve got the good stuff buried in the middle and lost.​

I don't think the point is so much "Start with action! And let characterization be built by interspersing other things with that action!" Although I think that's a great way to do characterization at the first of the book, I don't think it's the only way.

The idea of using an "establishing shot," the kind that might be detrimental, is to start with unnecessary exposition, generalities, info that isn't "key" (key for whatever you are wanting to communicate to the reader) and building up from that to the more specific, important things. It's burying the important things somewhere in the middle, or at least not putting it at the beginning.

What is or is not key will depend greatly on what you want to achieve with the first page of your book. Action is not the only type of thing that can be key. Also, I think that first paragraphs always establish something. They are introductions to the world, to a character, perhaps even to a conflict. They can also establish a tone. I think the important thing is to not feel forced to write an introduction to that introduction.

 

[Heliotrope]

I get that. But then what are your thoughts on this quote:

"Young authors are often encouraged to begin with action. The theory is that if you throw an obvious protagonist into a harrowing situation, the reader will love him just because he’s in trouble. Not so. Someone in trouble may elicit a sympathetic response from me on a surface level. But to make me really concerned about what happens to this person, I first have to care about him.

Let’s say we pick up a story that begins in the middle of a fistfight. Probably we will be at least marginally interested in what the fight is about. But we aren’t going to particularly care who wins the fight unless we care about one of the contestants. Beginning the story with a fistfight is definitely a good idea (as opposed to, say, opening with the protagonist warming up before the fight), but unless you throw in a reason to make the reader care, you’re probably sunk."

Because I agree with this. I have seen many writing examples (from myself, my students, an on this forum) where writers are going guns a blazing into action for pages, but not taking the time to really make the character connectable in any way?

I was hoping to use this post to brainstorm ideas as a group as to how to make characters connectable right out of the gate using examples from either film or fiction, be it

- humor
- self depreciation
- showing persistence
- showing love and connection to another person or place

Etc.

 

[FifthView]

Sure, avoiding characterization won't work well. I agree with the quote in that respect. The same thing can be seen in some bad movies, where the director thinks that non-stop, high-octane action will be enough to make viewers enjoy the movie. Well, that and stock characters.

But I think characterization, or making relatable characters, is a novel-long process in a novel. It's not really something that can be dumped into the first few paragraphs in order to get it out of the way. In fact, I find little difference between a fistfight at the beginning of a novel and a few paragraphs about an unknown (new to me) MC missing an unknown lover: that's kind of a stock scene anyway. This doesn't mean I won't be mildly interested, won't want to learn more about that character; but, I might be similarly interested in the character who successfully pulls off a highly acrobatic win in a knife fight.

Also, I don't think we should define "action" as being only fistfights, battles, and so forth. Active characters can be relatable depending on what happens to them and how they respond to it actively. I mean, as a cheap and quick example, the rogue who takes a knife to the side trying to push a street urchin out of the way during a fight between himself and a foe. I don't need him musing on a lost love or a lost sibling first.

 

[skip.knox]

Given the length of the average movie script, I'd say movies are closer to a short story or a novelette than they are to a full novel. Also, their artistic aims are different. So I don't turn to movies. I turn to novels.

"Once a guy stood all day shaking bugs from his hair. The doctor told him there were no bugs in his hair."

"The rain was a slantwise curtain across the dingy street, washing soot from city walls, the taste of it metallic on the lips of the tall, thin man who walked with a loping stride close to the buildings, watching the mouths of doorways, the gaps of alleys with a narrow-eyed intentness."

"On Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays it was Court Hand and Summulae Logicales, while the rest of the week it was the Organon, Repetition and Astrology. The governess was always getting muddled with her astrolabe, and when she got specially muddled she would take it out of the Wart by rapping his knuckles."

"To wake, and not to know where, or who you are, not even to know what you are--whether a thing with legs and arms, or a beast, or a brain in the hull of a great fish--that is a strange awakening. But after a while, uncurling in the darkness, I began to discover myself, and I was a woman."


What can I say? There are as many ways to open a novel as there are novels. Not every opening will appeal to every reader, or even to the same reader every time. All I can do is write for myself first, and listen to my readers during the edit. Asking the about the right opening is like asking which key is the best for writing a song. The answer is: every one, if you do it right.

 

[Heliotrope]

Ugh.

Maybe I'm just cranky today or something, but I'm not sure what the deal is with this post?

This was me this morning:

"Hey team! I just read some interesting things about establishing character that I thought was interesting. Let me share it with you. Hey! I have an idea, lets brainstorm examples of how this has been done in film and books so we have something to draw from when we are writing!"

Responses: You are wrong and those articles are wrong and these are the reasons why.

Not that I'm complaining, I just don't see what the point is in arguing. Why do we have to argue everything all the time? I wasn't trying to be 'right'. I wasn't trying to prove a point. I wasn't saying that all intros should start a certain way. I was saying "this is an interesting concept, lets see how it has been done by other authors so we can learn more about different options of creating interesting characters."

Sometimes I get the vibe a little on this site that we are all trying to be competitive or something? I don't know. I respect you guys and your thoughts and your opinions and I really value your input. I think you are both incredibly talented and knowledgable, so why can't we just chat about different ideas? Why can't we say to each other "hey, that is interesting"… sometimes instead of having to have an argument about how 'there is no right or wrong way to do it?'

Im not a very compensative person. I value collaboration and discussion. I just like working with people and talking with people (you guy fine guys). I don't claim to know everything (or anything) but I like to learn…

Again, maybe I'm just cranky today.