Writing Characters the Reader Cares About….

[Ireth]

I'm late to the party on this, and I haven't read the whole thread, but I thought I'd offer my two cents.

Instead of treating your characters as characters/caricatures, why not treat them as people? They live within the boundaries of their stories and inside your head, so write them as if they're alive in the flesh. Figure out what they want, what they fear, what they like and don't like. If they try to speak to you, listen; if they want to change your story and go their own way, try it out and see where they take you. It might be for the better.

 

[Miskatonic]

I'd suggest one of two possibilities. Either your started in the wrong place or you are writing the wrong story.

Of course there was.....(from the Elements of Fiction - Plot): "Melville wrote a large chunk of Moby Dick thinking that the pivotal figure was going to be a man named (I'm not kidding) Bulkington, who's then abruptly washed overboard the first day the Pequod leaves harbor and is never heard of again."

Well it sets up the whole motivation for the MC to leave his peaceful little island and head out into the world.

*Father owns influential shipping company.
*A country that once shunned all outside influence now wants to set up trade.
*Son is sent to speak with the ruler of that foreign land.
*Son brokers deal, brings family from his original homeland to live there.
*Children of the son are best friends of the MC.
*MC has premonition that they are in grave danger via his dreams.
*MC sets out to try and save them.
*MC is now out in the big bad world.

So one possibility of opening the book is the Son on a merchant vessel reading the parchment his father sent him as the ship is nearly at it's destination.

Either that or start with MC at home interacting with his friends, who are both above him as far as class status. Then shift to above part.

Either way the childhood friends have to relocate for the MC to have his motivation to leave home.

 

[Heliotrope]

Thanks Ireth!

Mikatonic… interesting…

Ok, so an example I think of when reading your synopsis is Game of Thrones. At the beginning we have the Starks. They receive message that the king is on his way to Winterfell because the Hand of the King (Lady Stark's brother in law as far as I can remember) is dead.

A few chapters in Lady Stark receives word from her sister that she has left King's Landing and gone back to the the Eyrie because she does not feel safe at Winterfell and believes her husband was murdered. Lady Stark burns the letter. This is part of what drives Lady and Eddard to investigate what is going on at King's Landing.

We don't ever meet Lady Starks sister until much later in the book, though she is part of the driving force at the beginning, but we do still meet her later on…

hmmmm, toughy.

 

[Penpilot]

You can't. Sorry, but readers liking your characters is something you have no control over. It's an entirely subjective thing, like pretty much every single aspect of story telling.

Personally, as a reader, I HATE the idea that writers can somehow "make" reader like or relate to or be interested in any part of a particular work. I HATE the idea that there are certain "methods" or "formulas" you can employ to ensure some kind of reader response. I HATE the idea of "hooks". Readers are not lab rats that you can manipulate at your will. And no one really knows how readers are going to respond to any given book. No one.

I don't know. I think it's a writer's job to manipulate reader's emotions. It's not an exacting science, but there are easy and proven ways to do this. The key IMHO is to do this in an honest way. Because there are cheap ways to do this and there are honest ways.

It's easy to make someone dislike a character. Just have them treat an elderly person or a child poorly. You want the audience to like a character, have them come to the elderly person or child's defence.

To me it boils down to simple human nature. I mean forget about fiction. You see someone kick a dog, you form an immediate negative impression of them. You're inclined to hate them. And the reverse is true if you see someone save a dog.

As people we manipulate others emotions all the time. When a friend is sad, you can tell them a joke or act the fool to make them laugh. There, you just manipulated their emotions.

Like I said, it's not a matter of if you can or should. It's about how you do it and why.

In one of my early writing classes, I wrote this story where the whole point was to get the reader to a surprise gotcha moment at the end. The story involved violence, and I thought myself oh so clever for being able to manipulate the reader like I did, because the class liked it. But my writing instructor took me aside and gave me a crap for it.

It took me a while before I realized what he was saying. My story was a dishonest story. The whole point of the story was to manipulate the reader just so I could throw up a surprise. The story had no other point than that. It was a bit of an FU to the reader, and the reader should have thrown that FU right back at me, and rightly so.

But if you manipulate the reader in an honest way, some really awesome moments can happen.

 

[FifthView]

This is what was happening with my and FifthView about the Night Crawler character, but, we both found the character intriguing enough to carry on with the film. I saw the character as sympathetic, FifthView saw him as a weasel. However, there was enough 'strangeness' about him (geeky, skinny, nasal voice, slicked back hair, unassuming demeanour, stealing construction material… and yet, he could take down a large security guard no problem.) There was enough questions brought up in the viewer about this character "What is going on with this guy/" That he was interesting.

That is the type of stuff I want to analyze. I need to break it down and see what was specifically done so I can use the same strategies. I think it is a science, personally.

Today, I'm working on some pre-writing brainstorming and outlining for a new novel, but I've had this on my mind, and a few other comments, and I think I've realized some things that I want to put "out there" before I fall into that nearly-bottomless well of brainstorming for my new novel.

A lot of the examples in this thread do point at this idea of making characters intriguing in the first paragraphs/scenes. I think that Brandon Sanderson's idea of the "Three Pronged Character Development" can be used to explain how this intrigue is developed, how characters can engage early (and throughout).

If you listen to all the podcasts I linked earlier, you realize that Sanderson et. al view those sliders—Competence, Proactivity, Sympathy—as being quite active. I mean, they can be slid up and down the scale throughout the novel. Especially, if you listen to their discussion of the many ways the scales may be adjusted, you find that the activities and circumstances—the "tricks" for adjustment—are "tweaks": so many different ways of nudging a bar up and down. So every scene, indeed every interaction between characters and between a character and her environment, may add or subtract a ".5" or a "1" on each scale.

And, these adjustments may make the reader adjust her impressions. These adjustments in fact may create some doubt, some disquiet, some hope, some suspension of belief as the reader comes to terms with the new information.

So...An example using Nightcrawler again. I do not want to spoil the movie for anyone, so I'm going to try to be as circumspect as I can here.

The more I've thought over our previous discussion of the movie and my own experience of the movie, and in light of Sanderson's three prongs—I hadn't thought of it in those terms until Brian made his comment—the more I've realized how you and I, Heliotrope, may have initially had such disagreement over the opening scenes.

So applying FifthView's excellent post, the character ranked high in both Competence and Proactivity, but low in likeability/sympathy, which made him engaging.

I had responded in agreement to Brian. But then I realized that the character, Louis Bloom, wasn't static throughout the whole movie. Looking back at the movie as a whole, then, yes, he had high Competence and high Proactivity while having a low Sympathy for me. But at first? No.

I'll try to break down my own personal...journey through the first few scenes, using Sanderson's sliders.

Spoiler Alert for anyone who doesn't want to have her experience of the opening colored by my reactions to it!

*

Scene 1: Opening Scene

First, I'd vaguely known going into the movie that it had something to do with television journalism. So when I saw Louis Bloom cutting a fence, I thought he was trying to get into some place where there was a story to be had. (I.e., I had a slight bias that affected my reaction to the events in the first scene) [Proactivity: High]

When the security guard drove up and stepped out of his car, I thought, "Ok, this tele-journalist/reporter is going to be able to talk himself out of this. What he's doing may be illegal...but, journalism." [Competence: Probably high?]

Bloom has a friendly demeanor, but he's also a clever talker, liar (white lies?) at first. Also, another bit of bias on my part: I'm predisposed to like any main character in a movie when the actor is known to me and one I've liked before; plus, it's a movie, so I come to it thinking that surely I'll find something to like in the main character, right? [Sympathy: Probably high.]

Like Bloom, I wasn't sure if this was a cop or a security guard initially. And, sad to say (about myself), my sympathy for that guard went from a higher level to a lower level when he was revealed to be a security guard. [Bloom's Competence: Yep, probably high.] because [Security Guard's Competence: Probably lower than Bloom's.] [Note: Sanderson talks about how these sliders affect each other. Competence automatically increases sympathy, at least a bit.]

As they talk, the camera pans to the security guard's wristwatch. That wristwatch glance gave me a twinge of, "Oh no, I was wrong about this character!" Because he might be a shady journalist—breaking in for a news story is one kind of illegal activity that might be morally "justified;" but going after a man's possessions, not so much. [Sympathy: Lowered a notch—possibly.] Then he attacks the guard. [Sympathy: Yep, lowered, but not a whole lot.]

But the scene ends. [Suspension of impressions.]

Scene 2: Driving Away

He's in his car, admiring the watch while driving. [Yep, doubt confirmed; Sympathy: Lowered.] And then the camera pans to the stolen fencing in the back of his car. [Thief, not journalist! Sympathy: Lowered.] As he's driving, he glances to the side and we are shown symbols of wealth—luxury car dealership; ATMs—and his eyes seeking them out. [Thief through-and-through, scouting his next hit—although, abstractly.] And far unlike the nice demeanor and openness of expression in the opening scene, his face is severe here. But at the same time, most of us can feel the economic disparity, have experienced that gulf between luxury and what we can get in our lives. [Sympathy: Lowered, increased: ambivalence.] I have some doubt about how I should feel about this guy.

Scene 3: Offloading Stolen Merchandise; Asking for Job

I don't want to go step-by-step for this scene, so will summarize.

At first, the impression I get is that he knows this construction site boss. But as soon as he begins to ask for a job, I realize that they are strangers.

That boss is somewhat unsympathetic at first—because he is willing to buy stolen merchandise, i.e. a corrupt business owner, and because those in positions of power with control over money are often less sympathetic than those who have naught. I had just been treated to that disparity in the previous scene. So in comparison, initially Bloom's Sympathy rises when he and this boss are put together.

At the very outset of Bloom's asking for the job, he's somewhat sympathetic. But then he begins lying, and his Sympathy drops sharply for me.

This is especially the case when he says, "Who am I? I'm a hard worker." Because, he's a thief. He's attacked a security guard and stolen the watch. This is going for the quick fix, not an example of being a hard worker.

Then: "I set high goals, and..." No. Stealing fencing, copper, etc. is not a high goal at all. He's a low-level thief.

Eventually, I realize he is saying the sorts of things he thinks will manipulate successfully. He's disingenuous. He's not sincere. Someone desperate for money might be prone to exaggerate, lie, manipulate because he's downtrodden, and this may make that person sympathetic. But someone who so slickly prevaricates while seeming to take pleasure in his own genius for prevarication is far less sympathetic.

Something Sanderson said in the podcast about adjusting the sympathy bar: One of the ways of nudging it up is to show a character has self-awareness. Characters with absolutely no self-awareness tend to be extremely unlikeable. And here's a guy who believes a construction-site boss will hire someone who has already displayed a willingness to steal construction supplies in order to make a quick buck. This was running through my mind as soon as he began to ask for the job and why I already suspected the boss would turn him down. That boss would have to be an idiot to hire him.

Also, this scene, from start to finish, lowers Bloom's Competency level dramatically from where it had been from the first scene. He fails to negotiate a good price for his stolen goods; he fails to manipulate the boss; he fails to secure a job. (Job? Or greater access to saleable goods?) We kind of wonder, still, whether we should root for him.

But one thing you can say about Louis Bloom: He's extremely Proactive throughout the movie.

Remainder of the Movie

Louis Bloom hits his stride eventually. Ironically, it turns out he has high goals and is a hard worker, once he finds the right medium. The rest of the movie, his Competency keeps getting pushed up and his Sympathy keeps getting pushed down. His Proactivity never wavers.

There are many examples of things that notch Competency up and Sympathy down. For instance, once he hires his first employee: it turns out that employee is the "good Bloom" that we thought we might be seeing in these first scenes. I mean, a down-on-his-luck, desperate, downtrodden sort of fellow. And putting them together, seeing how one treats the other...well. Much lowering of the Sympathy bar for Mr. Bloom.

But it's those initial doubts, the nudging of the bars up and down, that helped to intrigue me at the beginning.

 

[Heliotrope]

Thanks FifthView that is a really interesting and valuable analysis, and honestly matches up with what I saw too. I think, perhaps, the fact that you had a bias already because you had an idea of what the film was about played a part, like you said. But, I agree that I also had a bias towards the actor in general.

I read this while watching Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. I think I see how this works.

Jack Sparrow: Consistently low sympathy (not exactly honourable, honest, etc), yet the sliders for competency and proactivity are constantly in motion (probably consistently high proactivity, while competency varies considerably).

Will Turner: High sympathy, and the sliders for competency and proactivity are in constant motion, though generally high for both.

Elizabeth Swan: High sympathy, high proactivity, yet fairly low competency (she doesn't really do too much… And I get so annoyed at the scene with the Kraken where Will gives her the rifle, but through a series of events she ends up giving it to Jack and then clinging to his leg in fear).

 

[Heliotrope]

So actually, now that I think about it more, having the sliders move more dramatically makes for a more interesting character.

Jack Sparrow is the most dynamic of the three. The slider for competency is all over the map. Sometimes he is very clever and smart and can outwit anyone, and sometimes he is just a total idiot and you wonder how he could possibly survive, and sometimes luck just happens to favour him. All this makes him very interesting.

The other two are fairly static really.

 

[Mythopoet]

I don't know. I think it's a writer's job to manipulate reader's emotions. It's not an exacting science, but there are easy and proven ways to do this. The key IMHO is to do this in an honest way. Because there are cheap ways to do this and there are honest ways.

Say impact or affect rather than manipulate and I can agree with you. When we're talking about human interaction, the interaction between the author and the reader in this case, manipulation is a decidedly negative thing. That's my entire point. Most of the "simple formulas" and "hooks" and "tricks" come across to me as shallow and manipulative and dishonest. I can't stand them.

I heartily agree that an author should be able to influence my emotions with their writing. The best stories are the stories that impact me meaningfully. But only when they do so in an honest way, when they tell me an honest story that I respond to willingly. Not when they use gimmicks to try to elicit emotions out of me in the moment that fall flat upon further examination.

 

[kennyc]

Well it sets up the whole motivation for the MC to leave his peaceful little island and head out into the world.

*Father owns influential shipping company.
*A country that once shunned all outside influence now wants to set up trade.
*Son is sent to speak with the ruler of that foreign land.
*Son brokers deal, brings family from his original homeland to live there.
*Children of the son are best friends of the MC.
*MC has premonition that they are in grave danger via his dreams.
*MC sets out to try and save them.
*MC is now out in the big bad world.

So one possibility of opening the book is the Son on a merchant vessel reading the parchment his father sent him as the ship is nearly at it's destination.

Either that or start with MC at home interacting with his friends, who are both above him as far as class status. Then shift to above part.

Either way the childhood friends have to relocate for the MC to have his motivation to leave home.

I'm even more confused by your explanation. Why not start with the protagonist leaving or preparing to leave and fill in the back story later?

 

[BWFoster78]

When we're talking about human interaction, the interaction between the author and the reader in this case, manipulation is a decidedly negative thing. That's my entire point. Most of the "simple formulas" and "hooks" and "tricks" come across to me as shallow and manipulative and dishonest. I can't stand them.

I understand how you feel the word "manipulate" has negative connotation, but in the context of books and movies, I think it is both accurate and positive.

When I open a book or walk into a movie theater, I want to author or director to manipulate my emotions, to pull out every trick they have to. I don't want to sit there and not feel anything.

So I'm not sure how it's a negative thing if it's consensual.

 

[kennyc]

Say impact or affect rather than manipulate and I can agree with you. When we're talking about human interaction, the interaction between the author and the reader in this case, manipulation is a decidedly negative thing. That's my entire point. Most of the "simple formulas" and "hooks" and "tricks" come across to me as shallow and manipulative and dishonest. I can't stand them.

I heartily agree that an author should be able to influence my emotions with their writing. The best stories are the stories that impact me meaningfully. But only when they do so in an honest way, when they tell me an honest story that I respond to willingly. Not when they use gimmicks to try to elicit emotions out of me in the moment that fall flat upon further examination.

Yep. I read a lot of short stories (because that's what I write other than poetry) and am rarely blatantly emotional about a story. I do empathize and feel for the characters etc. last week though I read one that literally put a lump in my throat and a tear in my eye. The final story in this year's Best American Short Stories - Mr. Voice by Jess Walters originally published in Tin House. I'm sure it was due to my own life/experience etc, but damn. It was quite surprising to have had happen.

 

[kennyc]

I understand how you feel the word "manipulate" has negative connotation, but in the context of books and movies, I think it is both accurate and positive.

When I open a book or walk into a movie theater, I want to author or director to manipulate my emotions, to pull out every trick they have to. I don't want to sit there and not feel anything.

So I'm not sure how it's a negative thing if it's consensual.

Because it's not consensual when you are talking about manipulating.

Manipulate - control or influence (a person or situation) cleverly, unfairly, or unscrupulously.
"the masses were deceived and manipulated by a tiny group"
synonyms: control, influence, use/turn to one's advantage, exploit, maneuver, engineer, steer, direct, gerrymander; twist someone around one's little finger
"the government tried to manipulate the situation"

 

[FifthView]

Well then technically you manipulate the words on the page.

You don't sit the reader down, pin her eyelids open, put a clamp on her head so she can't move her line of vision.

No, the reader comes to the book hoping to be "cleverly influenced."

Now, the trick is in deciding whether the author manipulated those words knowing that a reader would come to them.

 

[Mythopoet]

Well then technically you manipulate the words on the page.

Manipulating words is fine. Using words to manipulate the reader is not, in my opinion.

You should be able to see the difference.

 

[BWFoster78]

Because it's not consensual when you are talking about manipulating.

How about this definition of "manipulate:"

to handle, manage, or use, especially with skill, in some process of treatment or performance

or this one:

to adapt or change (accounts, figures, etc.) to suit one's purpose or advantage.

 

[Mythopoet]

How about this definition of "manipulate:"



or this one:

1. handle or control (a tool, mechanism, etc.), typically in a skillful manner.

2. control or influence (a person or situation) cleverly, unfairly, or unscrupulously.

You see the difference in the definition applying to tools as opposed to the one applying to people?

 

[BWFoster78]

Manipulating words is fine. Using words to manipulate the reader is not, in my opinion.

You should be able to see the difference.

I think we have a difference of opinion on a fundamental level regarding this subject. I see it as my job as an author to manipulate reader emotions. I won't consider myself a success as an author until I learn to accomplish that manipulation a lot better than I can now.

 

[BWFoster78]

1. handle or control (a tool, mechanism, etc.), typically in a skillful manner.

2. control or influence (a person or situation) cleverly, unfairly, or unscrupulously.

You see the difference in the definition applying to tools as opposed to the one applying to people?

Even the definition #2 that you quoted notes that cleverly controlling or influencing people is a legitimate usage. Note the word "or." That is precisely how I'm using it: I want to use writing techniques to cleverly control or influence my readers' emotions.

 

[Mythopoet]

I think we have a difference of opinion on a fundamental level regarding this subject. I see it as my job as an author to manipulate reader emotions. I won't consider myself a success as an author until I learn to accomplish that manipulation a lot better than I can now.

That's probably true. I'm just trying to demonstrate that there are different ways different readers look at it. I'm arguing from the POV of myself as a reader here. I do not want my emotions manipulated. If I have an emotional response, I want it to be an honest one coming from me willingly rather than being "unscrupulously manipulated".

 

[Mythopoet]

Even the definition #2 that you quoted notes that cleverly controlling or influencing people is a legitimate usage. Note the word "or." That is precisely how I'm using it: I want to use writing techniques to cleverly control or influence my readers' emotions.

That is true, but be honest with yourself. If you asked 1000 random people how they feel about being manipulated how many would say "yes, please?" A very small subset. Most people think of being manipulated in a very negative light.

And I think that most readers, if they feel like a book is trying to manipulate them, would have a very negative reaction to that. The only way an author can get away with manipulating readers is to hide the fact that they are doing so, which makes it even more dishonest.