Writing Characters the Reader Cares About….

[FifthView]

Brian, I think that virtuous characters can be "real." Particularly when you have those characters suffering, you reveal that they are not perfect–they have weaknesses, which makes them human. But even during suffering, they don't need to lose their virtue.

There's a great example of this in the anime Now and Then, Here and There, a 13-episode story. Although there are other examples (say, Captain America), the MC of this anime is one of the most moving portrayals of obstinate virtue I have witnessed. Perhaps this is because the MC isn't particularly aware of his virtue; he just is. Also, the context he finds himself in is so extreme, this automatically sets up a contrast, between it and him. And he sees it, must react to it.

 

[Heliotrope]

With that, back to the original topic ...

I've been thinking a lot lately about characters as well, and I'll use this post to try to organize my thoughts:

1. I've read lots of advice on characters. Lots of advice. The important thing is that they're likable. No, they need to be relateable. No, they need to be engaging. Sometimes, it's better to ignore advice. Since I tend to prefer likable characters as a reader, that's what I'm going to shoot for as a writer. So how do you make a character likable?

2. The advice I followed with my novel was that, if you put a reader deep inside a character's head and make that character suffer, the reader will like the character. I'm not sure that that advice is wholly accurate. For some readers, this works really, really well. For a significant percentage, however, you have to pay attention to the sliders mentioned earlier in this thread.

3. Save the cat moments can be easily undermined by negative character actions.

4. For all the complaints about Mary Sues, I think readers tend to find strong, morally upright characters with few flaws much more likable than characters who do show flaws.

So I think that, in the future, I'd rather go overboard on making my character virtuous rather than making my character "real." (Note: these thoughts are only intended apply to the optimistic style fantasy that I write.)

Interesting observations Foster!

By now you probably all know I'm a great admirer of the advice of Donald Maas… you've heard me quote him enough. He says some things similar to what Foster has just said, particularly about 'heroes'. He notes that:

"What is it that makes a standout (character)?

It isn't about a protagonist with whom readers can identify. A protagonist with our job, our house, and our headaches isn't an automatic grabber. We may see ourselves in Everyman and Everywoman, but so what? That doesn't mean we'll care, or at any rate care enough to ride along for hundreds of pages down a painfully familiar road.

Nor are standout characters built of heroic muscle or dark allure. Action heroes and paranormal outsiders are popular, no question, but if unwavering fortitude or suffering sexiness were all that it took, then every action hero and tormented paranormal would be a best-seller. They're not. That's because it's not a protagonist' profile that causes us to care. It's not who they appear to be, but the qualities they demonstrate that unlock our hearts.

… A standout protagonist is one who quickly stirs in your reader high admiration. Note the word 'quickly'. In your fiction you don't have the luxury of years to spend while your reader gets to know your main character. A bonding born of admiration needs to occur right away, meaning within a page or two of your protagonist's first appearance in the story." (Maas, Writing 21st Century Fiction).

Ok, so then he goes on to talk about how to make a character exceptional. Better than an Everyman.

And, if I think more about it, I sort of agree. FifthView and I were talking about the movie Nightcrawler and the controversial character who was NOT particularly likeable… and I have just started thinking about what Maas said. I had never heard of Nightcrawler. It didn't exactly win awards or high ratings. My husband hated the film and didn't last the first 10min. It had an interesting premise… but it wasn't exactly Schindler's List.

If I think about what might be considered the 'best' or 'award winning' or 'most popular' stories of all time, they have a considerably high ratio of these standout/exceptional/heroic…. dare I say "mary sue" characters.

Yes, or course there are exceptions, and I can think of a lot… but I think, at the end of the day… do people like being inspired to be better? Seeing people (like Schindler) do something they wish they could do?

Just wondering about this. Any input?

 

[Heliotrope]

Off the top of my head, if I think about 'classic' stories with standout characters, I think of:

Luke Skywalker
Hans Solo
Gladiator Dude
Gandolf
Frodo and Bilbo
Schindler

And I'm ashamed to admit that as a teenager, I loved Richard Cypher… (so embarrassing).

 

[FifthView]

FifthView and I were talking about the movie Nightcrawler and the controversial character who was NOT particularly likeable… and I have just started thinking about what Maas said. I had never heard of Nightcrawler. It didn't exactly win awards or high ratings. My husband hated the film and didn't last the first 10min. It had an interesting premise… but it wasn't exactly Schindler's List.

NOT to be a nitpicker but...it has 95% on Rotten Tomatoes. Among reviewers. The public has given it an 85% on that site.

I was thinking about Guardians of the Galaxy, which actually scored slightly lower on RT. But while considering the three sliders, I tried to figure out exactly where those sliders were for the characters. They are ramped pretty high for all three sliders, although not maxed out. In the very second scene, Peter Quill's sliders are probably nearly maxed; first scene, his sympathy bar is through the roof.

The thing about movies is that the director only has approx. 2 hours to deliver a story, and so often will want to max whatever impression he's going to leave of the characters quite early in the story. Especially for blockbuster, summer flick types of movies. The subtler portrayals, requiring a whole movie and even then not always being definitive about a character, are often stereotyped as art-house types. (Although some mainstream dramas do this as well.)

 

[Heliotrope]

Lol. Ok, I take that back then. Nit Picking is good.

But I'm still wondering, when did classic heroes fall out of favour? If I think about all the stories that have stood the test of time I think about Hercules. Odysseus, Achilles, David and Goliath, Daniel and the Lions, and all the wonderful truly heroic characters that make it into the big books and blockbusters…

 

[FifthView]

I don't think classic heroes have fallen out of favor. Only now they are called superheroes.

BUT, perhaps the way such characters can and have been so mismanaged has hurt the brand. It's just so easy to do, ramping everything up, that it can easily seem like cliché. Superman is a good case in point of some of the problems that arise when a character is too good at everything.

 

[Heliotrope]

Ok… now I'm wondering if, perhaps, the it isn't about the character themselves as much as it is about the stakes they overcome. A character is only as big as the conflict they overcome…

hmmmmmmmm…..

 

[Russ]

Your post #102 contains a lot of food for thought.

I quite like Mr. Maas and find his advice good most of the time.

On the question of the heroic character, or every man character, I think each can be right for the right story.

For instance Bond or Bourne are characters that are almost superheroic but are very successful both in film and print. And with Bond in particular in film "humanizing him" has only really come around lately.

Robert Langdon or Jack Ryan are very different, or the hero in North by Northwest (forgot his man) but still heroes nonetheless but of a completely different ilk than Bond or Bourne.

Or compare say Conan or Elric vs. Shea (forgot his whole name) in the Shannara Series or Covenant in Lord Foul's Bane.

Either kind of hero works, everyman or super talented, if it is the right hero for the story you want to tell.

I think there are more MC's of high competence out there, but a good everyman can make for a fantastic tale.

 

[Miskatonic]

Don't forget Hannibal Lector. He may have been morally repugnant but people still gravitated towards him because the acting/writing was so superb in Silence of the Lambs.

Not to mention it won best picture at the Oscars.

 

[Russ]

Don't forget Hannibal Lector. He may have been morally repugnant but people still gravitated towards him because the acting/writing was so superb in Silence of the Lambs.

Not to mention it won best picture at the Oscars.

I still prefer Red Dragon, but if you are having a chat about memorable movie characters Lector should definately be in the conversation.

 

[Heliotrope]

Yeah, I've been trying to figure out how to work in Hannibal Lector.

I can't remember what motivated him to help the cop? But he was helping the cop find the killer, so he is working for the 'good' side, which makes him redeemable? I don't know. That's a stretch. But there is something likable/admirable about him…

Yes, Russ, I agree about the variety of heroes, but I think what is important is that they are all 'heroic' or 'larger than life' in someway. They are not Everyman. They are better.

 

[BWFoster78]

Brian, I think that virtuous characters can be "real." Particularly when you have those characters suffering, you reveal that they are not perfect–they have weaknesses, which makes them human. But even during suffering, they don't need to lose their virtue.

FifthView,

My methodology for my first book was:

Figure out a character
Put that character in a situation
See what happens
How the character reacted defined who that character was
Stay true to who that character was the rest of the book

If I had it to do over again, I'd deliberately choose strong traits for the character and use scenes to show those traits early on rather than letting the character be who he is. Basically, I'd more deliberately manipulate the reader.

 

[FifthView]

There's also the fact that Hannibal Lector "seemed" to be an antihero. It's not just that he helped Clarice Starling find the killer, but also seemed to genuinely like her and fulfilled a role as her protector in later films in the series. He even cuts off his own hand, rather than hers!

This reminds me of one of those Writing Excuses podcasts, a couple of the methods for increasing sympathy for a character. If you already have a character who is likeable, you can increase another character's sympathy rating by showing that character helping her out. Also, a character who is shown to like a sympathetic character is made more sympathetic himself.

If you as reader/viewer are already on Clarice's side, then Hannibal seems to join that side with you.

Plus the fact that Hannibal is shown to choose his targets because they are reprehensible in some way helps to make him seem like an antihero. Incidentally, this method played a large role in Dexter also.

 

[Heliotrope]

Yes, Thank you FV, I was also thinking about comparisons to Dexter. And great clarification.

Brian, I think you are going in a good direction with your characterization this time around.

At the end of each chapter of Maas' book he has checklists. One of the tools for characterization:

- Is your protagonist an Everyman/woman? What's his or her outstanding quality? Show it in the first five pages. Terrific. Now show it within one page.

And example I can think of is the latest Jurassic Park. Chris Pratt's character is immediately shown as protective, compassionate and an Alpha to the Raptors, instantly making him stand out from the rest. Instantly transforming him into a sort of 'hero' before the conflict has even started.

- Is your protagonist a hero or herione, someone with a job that entails danger, big decisions, and high responsibility? Find one way (even a small one) in which he is perfectly human. Got it? Good. Show it on the page right away.

Example: Despite the fact that Chris Pratt is the raptor Alpha, he still strikes out with the beautiful ladies.

 

[Russ]

Yes, Russ, I agree about the variety of heroes, but I think what is important is that they are all 'heroic' or 'larger than life' in someway. They are not Everyman. They are better.

I think one of the traditional underlying messages in the "everyman" story is that we all have heroic elements within us, even if we can't do a 360 spinning kick or cut a man in half with one stroke, and that all we need to realize our heroism is the right situation and the right motivation.

While sometimes harder to write, it is easier for the average reader to identify with the everyman than say Conan or Bond.

Take the popularity of the downstairs staff on Downton Abbey for example.

 

[FifthView]

FifthView,

My methodology for my first book was:

Figure out a character
Put that character in a situation
See what happens
How the character reacted defined who that character was
Stay true to who that character was the rest of the book

If I had it to do over again, I'd deliberately choose strong traits for the character and use scenes to show those traits early on rather than letting the character be who he is. Basically, I'd more deliberately manipulate the reader.

It would seem then that rather than creating a situation to "see" what that character is like, maybe knowing what a character is like first and then choosing a situation to accentuate that character's traits–or to put those traits on trial–might be the better method of approaching character development?

Edit: Well, since we need to choose scenes that advance the plot, then maybe we should keep in mind that we need to also choose how we write them to show character traits.

 

[Heliotrope]

Totally. But even in Downton Abby the servants are 'more than human'. I think about the Butler with his un-yeilding desire to maintain traditional customs and order… showing a trait that is admirable because he is so passionate.

But yes, I get what you are saying.

 

[Penpilot]

Edit: Well, since we need to choose scenes that advance the plot, then maybe we should keep in mind that we need to also choose how we write them to show character traits.

The way I look at it, there are three things scenes generally do, advance the plot, character, or expand the world.

Adiquat scenes only do one of those three things. Good scenes do two and great ones do all three. I strive for all three in all my scenes. Of course that doesn't guarantee greatness but it certainly doesn't hurt.

 

[Heliotrope]

Exactly. I was hoping someone was going to touch on this. I didn't notice it in FV's post… maybe I missed the edit?

When I'm planning my stories I don't plan a 'save the cat' scene specifically on it's own, I just try to work it in to my opener.

Using my Jurassic World example:

In the scene the raptors are turning on a new worker. The new worker is cornered. Pratt's character steps in and saves the guy, while at the same time showing compassion to the raptors.

What do we get from this scene? So much!

Plot: We see how dangerous the animals can be. We see what the park involves. We get a sense of the setting.

Character: We see him 'save the cat'. We see how he is different then everyone else, we see foreshadowing of the skills he will use to save everyone at the end. We learn that he is excellent at understanding predator behaviour. We learn that the raptors trust him, but also that they could turn very quickly (heightening the conflict).

 

[Heliotrope]

I use a sort of chart when planning my stories, and act one has a check list. My act one is usually composed of three key parts. I show it as a large triangle on a large sheet of paper. As the triangle goes up (rising action) I must hit a few key points. This is the beginning 10%:

- Show main character in real life. Problems she needs to solve, something in her life is making her unhappy, but she isn't ready to do anything about it. Unsatified. Show dreams, issues, redeeming qualities (Save the Cat).

- Show problems/flaws "See how screwed up she is?" This is what she will have to fix before she can win at the end.

- Show events that may cause the inciting event. Why will she respond the way she does?

- Show a characteristic moment. Try to create a scene that exhibits both the MC's personality and an activity that will be important later on in the story. Create movement, mystery, questions.

At the top of the triangle is the Inciting moment another 10%. Key points I must include are:

- Start the story in motion. She is pushed out of normal world into story world. Opportunity to change or fix problem and HAS to choose change. Core conflict. Here is what the book is about. She CAN'T walk away and go on as before. "Rock her world in a way she didn't see coming."

Then, as the Triangle slopes down I have a scene (or scenes) showing the final 5%:

- Break into act 2. MC moves from normal world to story world. She makes a conscious choice to do this. Stakes are raised for the first time. Choice is the big moment. She must choose to act. Agreeing to act will force her from her comfort zone into an emotional and scary situation. The step into the unknown is vital to the external and internal goal and launches the middle. MAKE HER REACT.

Etc.

So in a novel length I have more time for each of these scenes. In a short story I have to be creative to hit all the key points in only a few thousand words… which is actually really fun and I love the challenge. I like to break it up into chunks so that it keeps me focussed and forces me to be creative. In my short I'm working on right now I have a limit of 6000 words. I had to fit all the points above (all parts of the triangle) into 1500 words. It was tough! But like PP noted, the scenes had to hit all key points and I had to be creative in how to go about doing it.