The Essential Questions: Part 1.2 - Who (Continued)
Writing: Thoughts and TipsWho (Continued)
Getting to Know Your Characters
On AFF, whenever there is an arranged marriage, the guy has to be either a total playboy or a total "ice prince." It is impossible to become engaged to a guy who isn't either flirting/sleeping with all the women in the world or pathologically misanthropic. (Actually, whether an arranged marriage is involved or not, the guy in question will probably be one of the two.)
If you have a female OC, she has to be drop dead gorgeous or hideous (until she gets a makeover). She has to be a completely marginalized individual, despised and bullied every day, or the constant center of attention. She has to be the valedictorian or an academic failure.
There's no happy medium. Where are the people who are average-looking? Slightly above or below average-looking? Where are the people who enjoy flirting but maintain stable and committed relationships? Where are the people who can talk to other human beings normally but aren't universally liked? Where are the people who get A's in one class, B's in others, and C's in their worst subject?
Some people go with the extremes because they think that's the key to making the character a good one (which is false). Others avoid extremes because they think that extremes are bad characterization by default (which is also false). However, often even the so-called middle ground is so artificial that it might as well be an extreme because in the process of avoiding extremes, the writer ends up manufacturing a character that sounds like she exists for the sake of fitting into the box of "normality."
I think these trends are a symptom of a broader problem with characterization: people forget that these characters are human or at least have the subjective qualities and experiences that we consider a central to being "human." They forget that humans are more than just a sum of their parts. They overemphasize these quick labels and brief descriptions. Characterization goes beyond what they are; it's who they are. It's not about the traits but rather how these traits reflect and affect their identities and their lives.
In addition, writers forget to take time to consider the full spectrum of these characters' existences. They get so caught up in the love stories that they forget that the characters' love lives don't define their entire existences. They forget that most people don't spend their entire day thinking about their crushes and plotting ways to snag them. I know hormones play a huge part in teenagers' lives, but from the way people write their stories, you'd think adolescents are programmed to blindly follow their hormones; if the other person is attractive, nothing else matters!
Moreover, although it’s true that teenagers will act immaturely because they're inexperienced and their brains haven't fully developed yet, many people like to write them like they don't have brains or any sense of responsibility. Have some more respect for yourselves, people. Sure, maybe we we aren't adults by the legal definition, or maybe we are legally adults but aren’t adults in a biological sense, or maybe we’re neither legally nor biologically adults, but we're not nine years old either.
Tips:
Remove these characters from their love lives and the plot of the story and answer various questions about them:
- Who are the members of their families? What's their relationship with them?
- Who are their friends? What is it that makes these people their friends?
- Do they consider anyone their rivals? If so, who? Why?
- Do they have enemies? Do they even believe in enemies?
- Who do they admire and idolize? Why?
- What are their aspirations? What have they been doing to achieve them? Do they have dream jobs?
- What are their struggles? Are they external, internal, or both? How are they confronting them?
- What are the things that they're absolutely committed to?
- What are the things they really cannot abide by?
- What’s the extent of their personal bubbles?
- Do they talk very quickly or very slowly? Do they talk with their hands?
- What are their natural walking paces?
- How do they dress? Do they care about fashion? How much make-up do they wear?
- Are they superstitious? Do they pay any attention to astrology?
- Do they have a religion? Which one? How important is their religion to them? How rigidly do they adhere to the conventional/orthodox beliefs?
- Do they have strong political opinions? Are they politically active? What's their attitude toward politics as a whole?
- Is there any physical trait of theirs that they have a complex about? (Meaning they're a bit obsessed with it, and it stresses them out and negatively impacts the way they perceive themselves and how they believe others perceive them.)
Notice that this list isn't just
- Name:
- Age:
- Blood type:
- Birthday:
- Height:
- Weight:
- Fashion:
- Likes:
- Dislikes:
- Hobbies:
- Family members:
- etc.
While filling out something like the above does tell you something about the characters, it doesn't give you a good sense of what they're truly like. Think about how many people like the same things and dress similarly. They are not at all the same through and through. This kind of character survey only hits on the superficial things and doesn't tell you very much about how the characters think or behave. (This is why I think applications for apply fics are kind of pointless.)
The list of questions is not at all exhaustive, and beyond these basic things, you can do a bit of roleplaying with specific situations. That helps to differentiate the characters from people with similar personality traits. Two people could have similar personality traits in general, but when confronted with a particular situation, they'd act and react differently.
One prime example is: if someone handed these characters each 1 million dollars, what would they do with that money? What would they do with that money if they had to use it on themselves? What would they do with that money if they couldn't use it on themselves? Be honest and realistic. I'm sure there are people who would gladly give all the money away without hesitation, but I'm also fairly certain that most people have a wish or two that they would fulfill if they had the financial means to do so. If they do give the money away, are there particular causes or people they'd donate it to? Environmental stuff? An animal shelter? Cancer research? Starving children in Africa/Asia/Latin America? New books for libraries? Scholarship money for poor students pursuing engineering degrees? Their family members who are going through financial difficulty? There are numerous different possibilities.
Here are some more questions:
- If they could meet any person from the past, who would they want to meet? Why?
- If they could live in any place, where would they live? Why?
- If they could live in any time period, when would they live? Why?
- If they could change one aspect about themselves, what would it be? Why?
- If they could go back in time and change one event in their lives, what would it be? Why?
- If a homeless person came up to them and asked them for money or something, what would they do?
- If they knew the world was going to end soon, what would they spend their last days doing? (Bucket list!)
- If they had to write a book, what kind of book would they write?
- If they had five minutes to say anything to the people of the world (assuming everyone understood them), what would they say?
- If aliens were coming to Earth, and humans could give them a guide book or sorts, what are the top five things about humans and the Earth that they would want in that guide book?
Not all of these issues and situations will take the spotlight in a story, and most of them probably won’t crop up at all, but answering these questions can give you a broader and deeper understanding of your characters. It will help you write them consistently and realistically, so you end up with human beings and not just cardboard cutouts with labels pasted all over them.
Flaws
One of the most important aspects of creating a character who is believable and realistic is giving that character flaws.
The Wrong Way to Do It
- is clumsy (this is very strongly associated with Mary Sues)
- dislikes a certain kind of food
- has a C in a class
- cusses a lot
- is bad at an instrument
I'm not saying they can't be/do any of these things, but these should not be the full extent of their imperfections.
The Right Way to Do It
- pressures the character might fall prey to
- things he/she might overlook
- situations he/she might throw themselves into impulsively
- situations he/she might get into due to lack of foresight and preventative measures
- obstacles he/she might back away from rather than face and overcome
The idea is that aside from not being amazing at everything and at certain things, these characters shouldn't always act and react in the most appropriate and/or judicious/wise ways when stuff happens, especially bad stuff.
Note: There is a difference between the characters never thinking things through at all (being stupid) and temporarily allowing emotions or other factors to cloud or overcome their better judgment (acting stupidly).
Think about the Seven Deadly Sins: Wrath, Pride, Greed, Sloth, Gluttony, Lust, Envy. I think everyone is prone to all of these at some point, and every person who isn't some sort of saint probably falls prey to one or more of these more often than other people or more so than the other Sins. In fact, variation in people's susceptibility to these Sins can be a way of distinguishing different characters.
"Good" and "Strong" Characters, Protagonists vs. Antagonists
General prefacing note: This applies more to longer stories because character development usually plays a huge role in those. Also, for those who are unfamiliar with the terms, the protagonist is the "hero(ine)" of the story, and an antagonist is the opposite of a protagonist, usually but not always the character we think of as the "bad guy."
While not always the case, in general, authors are and should be concerned with crafting and presenting characters that seem realistic, human and, in the case of protagonists, characters that people can relate to. Unfortunately, the importance of this often gets overlooked when writers are trying to write "good" characters. In their minds, good is strong and strong means the character is literally good at everything, which is not true.
Trust me when I say that a character does not have to be one divine parent short of a demigod in order to be a good or strong character. (This isn't to say that you can't write a multi-talented character as your protagonist. People like that do exist in real life, after all. The trick is to portray the character in such a way that he/she doesn't seem impossibly larger than life. I’ll explain how further down.) A good/strong character doesn't even have to be likable; the character simply needs to have a distinct personality and sufficient depth that makes him/her seem like more than just a puppet under the author's hands. If you don't really get what I mean by puppets, I'm talking about characters such as female OCs who seem like they’re there just to be on the receiving end of oppas' (not to mention every other non-evil person's) adoration and villains who are there just to manufacture conflict.
Protagonists
The key to presenting protagonists who are realistic, have depth, and all of that is to communicate their failures and struggles in your story. Those are what highlight their flaws. If they're never put to the test, then you'll never see their flaws because they never mess up. However, it's not as simple as throwing obstacles at your character left and right.
In general, a failure can be attributed to either external factors or internal factors (sometimes a mixture of both). The external case is a situation in which things outside of the character's control make it impossible for that person to succeed. The internal case is a situation in which the character's own mindsets, choices, and behaviors lead to failure. In general, the failures from internal factors do a much better job of demonstrating a person's flaws. In the external case, there's not much to be said on the character's part except "sorry I'm not literally perfect and can't do something that defies logic and/or the laws of nature."
For example, if the character's teacher gave a test on material that was never covered in class or in the textbook or anything, then the fact that the character failed the test doesn't really say much about the character but rather that the teacher is a jerk. On the other hand, if the teacher gave a test on material that was fair game, and the character simply chose not to study very hard, that would be a valid showcasing of a flaw.
You should take a look at your character’s screw-ups and struggles and think about whether they are mostly caused by external factors or internal factors. You want to avoid making too many of them attributable to external factors. However, don’t make them overwhelmingly internal either because that may make your character look like a weak and incompetent person who doesn’t know how to put up a fight in life. You need to have a balance of both kinds.
A similar guideline can be laid out for a character’s successes. Successes that are achieved as a result of pure luck aren’t very meaningful. Successes that result from the characters’ own talents and efforts, on the other hand, are much more telling about them as people.
For example, winning the lottery is something you’d congratulate a person for, but finishing a novel is something you’d congratulate them on and feel proud of them for.
In addition, you should make your characters fight for their successes. Even if they have natural talents, those talents aren’t going to guarantee them success. If it doesn’t seem like they’re putting in much effort into achieving their successes, then that detracts from the value of those accomplishments.
In short, you want your readers to be able to sit down beside this protagonist and say “man, you screwed up” without thinking “you’re pathetic” and say “yay you” without thinking “why are you so freaking perfect.”
Antagonists
Part of the problem with the way people craft antagonists is the tendency to view “antagonist” as being synonymous with “bad guy” or “evil.” An antagonist is not evil by default. He/she is simply someone who interferes with or opposes the protagonist’s pursuit of happiness (or whatever goal it is) in some way. An antagonist doesn’t have to parade around with the mindset of “I hate you (the protagonist) and therefore will do my very best to make your life hell.” Sometimes the conflict between a protagonist and antagonist arises from differences in values or competition for the same end.
For antagonists, it’s not really about making them relatable as much as it is giving them legitimate motivations. You don’t necessarily have to agree with their values, and you don’t have to justify them or portray the antagonists in a sympathetic light, but you should provide them something that explains their actions beyond the fact that they are Evil Incarnate.
If you don’t provide any insight into antagonists’ motivations, then the end product is the stereotypical queenka character on AFF: the y girl who wants to make life difficult for people just because. Because she can. There’s not much interesting going on for this type of character. In my opinion, having insight into their motivations makes antagonists, particularly villains—the true bad guys—more compelling and more frustrating. You can see why they are the way they are while lamenting that they’re making things difficult for the protagonist.
Comments