Bill Conrad's Blog - Posts Tagged "characters"
Great Protagonists
When we think of a protagonist, there’s a wide spectrum of examples. The crazy book fan in Stephen King novel Misery, Darth Vader from Star Wars, Joker from Batman, Hans Gruber from Die hard and Agent Smith from the Matrix. In real life, there are plenty of terrible examples. The Axis leaders in WWII, Ivan the Terrible, Saddam Hussain, the North Korean Kim dynasty, Jeffery Dahmer and David Koresh.
As a writer, it’s sometimes necessary to have a protagonist. These characters span the range from slightly annoying to beyond contempt. They are defined by selfish motives, anger, aggression, laziness, a love of inflicting pain and/or a lack of empathy. Often they intentionally don’t think about the consequences of their actions.
To me, that’s not the entire story. A good protagonist must have a clear motive behind their bad intentions. The new character Sam walked over and hit Fred. Why did Sam do this? Should the reader hate Sam? Is Sam actually a hero? Yes, I know that in real life, people are sometimes jerks without any logical reason. However, authors have to think in terms of the reader and readers have a difficult time relating to a blank character. We have to know Sam’s deal; Sam cannot just be evil. Fred’s response to Sam’s actions has to make sense.
In real life, people have minds and very few of us truly embrace evil. We think we’re normal and when we do something bad, we consider our actions to be acceptable behavior. Sometimes we act badly intentionally because it’s exciting or to assure ourselves that we’re in control. During this time, we usually know what we’re doing is wrong, but we overall think of ourselves as being good.
Here’s a lite example. A person on rare occasions drives over the speed limit. They know their driving is dangerous and yet, they still do it. To them, their decision to put others in danger doesn’t feel like a big deal until somebody gets hurt. After the accident, the driver can admit fault or pretend to be innocent. As an outsider judging this driver would consider them to be basically a good person.
Now, let’s take a driver that regularly drives aggressively and is constantly putting others in danger. Over the years of driving, there would be incidents where this bad driver was told by others that they weren’t a good person for driving in this manner. As they continue to drive aggressively, their mind develops a mental defense mechanism. For example, a justification argument, “The rest of my life is great and this is my one escape.” Complete denial, “Everybody drives bad, I’m no exception.” A deflection, “I’m a great driver, its’ everybody else that can’t drive.” An offensive argument, “I’m protecting myself from other drivers.” Or a deferral, “I hate wasting time in traffic.” In all of these arguments, there’s no admittance of responsibility, “I know that I’m a bad driver and someday, somebody is going to get hurt. When this happens it will be my fault.”
Now, let’s take a bad example. A person who physically abuses others to the point where there can be no denial. Their arguments are the same as the bad driver, but the logic is deeply flawed, “The rest of my life is great and this is my one escape.” It would be clear to an outside observer that the person making that statement has mental issues or they are truly evil.
The point is that bad people cannot confront the fact that they themselves are truly bad. This is because evolution has provided humans with a mental defense that allows us to tolerate our choices. Otherwise, people would have guilt trips all day long.
There are many examples of this denial in real life. An interview with a serial killer will be full of logic behind their bad actions. Interviews with the great oppressive leaders are loaded with lofty illogical reasons for their cruelty.
A good protagonist builds upon the foundation of a bad person who has the mindset that they’re just fine. Their abhorrent actions make perfect sense to themselves. From there, the writer applies motivation. A good protagonist has the same motivations as us, but they apply their motivation differently. For example, a good person tries to get ahead with hard work while a bad person gets ahead with shortcuts. A good person uses their mind to solve problems while a bad person steals the teachers answer key. A good person feels good by helping others while a bad person feels superior by hurting others. It should be noted that the protagonist typically doesn’t have low intelligence. It is more likely that a protagonist will have an apparent low intelligence and use their mind in creative ways to compensate which reveals high intelligence. This lazy overcompensation is a core trait.
A protagonist must be relatable to the reader. The reader might have a relative or a coworker that acts just like the protagonist in the story. Well, what about a super-protagonist like Darth Vader or Saddam Hussain? In my humble writings, I try to stay from super/extreme characters because I feel readers are less likely to relate to them in real life.
My closest attempt at an extreme character is in my first book, Interviewing Immortality. My protagonist appears as a dominatrix serial killer. Later, it’s revealed that she is actually not super evil [at least in her mind.] The majority of the book is spent discussing this point. However, she is by definition an extreme character. Her level of violence is far above normal and her attitude contains a thin sliver of compassion. By the end of the book, the reader isn’t fully convinced that she’s a good person. However, the reader clearly understands the motives behind her wickedness.
Does this mean that the reader needs to like the protagonist? Generally, they shouldn’t. The protagonist serves as a foil to the other characters. They give the plot motive and their actions build the other characters.
Can there be a story that focuses on the protagonist? Sure, they can be the main character or whatever the plot requires. The protagonist in my first book was the main character and she was built on a careful foundation. There were very specific reasons for her actions, however, when confronted, she was reluctant to accept responsibility. She would never say, “I did it because I’m mean.” She would say, “The people who I hurt deserved to be hurt.” Why is this motivation angle so important? Why can’t she simply be bad? Simple, readers don’t relate to the logic of a normal bad person. In real life, a criminal commits a robbery. Our only desire is to lock them up. We don’t care about their life’s story and we have no empathy. The only part of the story we enjoy is the chase to locate the criminal.
Well, what about crime dramas? In general, stories of that type focus on the police and not on the criminal. What about Hannibal Lecter? Readers got a front row seat into his insanity. He is clearly a twisted person trying to taunt the police and he is the entire story. To me, that story is an exception. Perhaps I am blinded by the fact that I don’t like those kinds of stories. To me, a great story involves converting the reader to relate to the protagonist. Readers like to be lead down an exciting path. They generally dislike confusion, illogical plots, incomplete characters, bad people [characters we hate so much that we put down the book] and missing information.
Well, what about crazy people or people who are normally mean? My advice is to use characters of this type sparingly. For example, in my fifth book Kim and Gabe Thrive (which is now in the writing phase) my main character is pumping gas when a random protagonist insulted her. She delivers an insult back and drives away without any further interaction.
The protagonist served to show that the main character is strong; specifically as a good example to her daughter as a mother who doesn’t accept insults. If there was a need for further interaction of that protagonist, their background would have been revealed. Otherwise, readers would be confused by the main character. Is she the type of woman who attracts random bad people? Is she living in an area that is full of bad people? It’s best not to leave the reader guessing. Because, in reality, readers go to the gas station all the time without confrontation.
Well, what about a confused protagonist? They are walking along, minding their own business and they do something bad without any apparent motivation. In real life, there are a few people who have this trait. It’s my opinion that readers would have a hard time relating to this kind of character. Well, what about a supernatural story where characters are mean all the time? Say a dystopian reality. For this type of story, the author would have to lay out a different foundation. In crazy world, everybody’s a jerk and now the story makes sense.
What about a super villain like the type that James Bond would encounter? They want to cause an earthquake and are holding the world for ransom. If a reader analyzes a story of this type, there is always a foundation and logic behind the protagonist’s actions. In general, this type of protagonist had a bad childhood and spent their life over compensating. The logic behind their specific motives revolves around a disliked group of people and they use their power to inflict pain on this same group. In this extreme case, the reader doesn’t necessarily relate to the protagonist, but they do respect their logic even if it is vastly flawed.
What about a real life super villain Saddam Hussain or Jeffery Dahmer. Reality is a bit muddy in this area. Are they crazy, power hungry or over compensating? Hard to say, but what is clear is that real life people like that are very different from a James Bond’s protagonist. This difference is in the level of control they have over their lives and the impact of their actions. When James Bond’s protagonist causes an earthquake, the world sends James Bond after him. If Saddam Hussain caused an earthquake, the media would have over the top coverage until the armies of the world put a stop to him.
There are of course protagonist that doesn’t fit the traditional mold. The anti-hero. For example, the character Mad Max is kind of bad and kind of good. Or the super nice person who makes us feel terrible. A dentist who inflicts a lot of pain to make a tooth feel better. Characters like this are kind of in their own class and their motivations are complex and perhaps outside this discussion.
So where does this all lead us? A good protagonist needs to have a clear foundation, a clear motive and should be relatable. The writer needs to have a goal for the protagonist; essentially define what they are going to do for the story. By the end of the story, the reader should have fully understood their motives.
How does that relate to real life? Characters in books are mirrors of our reality. They should stretch the bonds and allow us to reflect. What about me? Am I a protagonist? I know I’ve made mistakes and I like to be in control. If I were to be honest with myself, on the scale of real people, I’m a B+. I have room to grow and I try hard to live a good life that’s not at the expense of others. I also try very hard to treat people with respect and help out where I can. Wait a minute. I do write books that contain stories about bad people. They torture, kill and aren’t productive members of society. Am I in denial of my true self and really a bad person? Denial is the greatest trait of a protagonist. Hmm. Something to think about.
As a writer, it’s sometimes necessary to have a protagonist. These characters span the range from slightly annoying to beyond contempt. They are defined by selfish motives, anger, aggression, laziness, a love of inflicting pain and/or a lack of empathy. Often they intentionally don’t think about the consequences of their actions.
To me, that’s not the entire story. A good protagonist must have a clear motive behind their bad intentions. The new character Sam walked over and hit Fred. Why did Sam do this? Should the reader hate Sam? Is Sam actually a hero? Yes, I know that in real life, people are sometimes jerks without any logical reason. However, authors have to think in terms of the reader and readers have a difficult time relating to a blank character. We have to know Sam’s deal; Sam cannot just be evil. Fred’s response to Sam’s actions has to make sense.
In real life, people have minds and very few of us truly embrace evil. We think we’re normal and when we do something bad, we consider our actions to be acceptable behavior. Sometimes we act badly intentionally because it’s exciting or to assure ourselves that we’re in control. During this time, we usually know what we’re doing is wrong, but we overall think of ourselves as being good.
Here’s a lite example. A person on rare occasions drives over the speed limit. They know their driving is dangerous and yet, they still do it. To them, their decision to put others in danger doesn’t feel like a big deal until somebody gets hurt. After the accident, the driver can admit fault or pretend to be innocent. As an outsider judging this driver would consider them to be basically a good person.
Now, let’s take a driver that regularly drives aggressively and is constantly putting others in danger. Over the years of driving, there would be incidents where this bad driver was told by others that they weren’t a good person for driving in this manner. As they continue to drive aggressively, their mind develops a mental defense mechanism. For example, a justification argument, “The rest of my life is great and this is my one escape.” Complete denial, “Everybody drives bad, I’m no exception.” A deflection, “I’m a great driver, its’ everybody else that can’t drive.” An offensive argument, “I’m protecting myself from other drivers.” Or a deferral, “I hate wasting time in traffic.” In all of these arguments, there’s no admittance of responsibility, “I know that I’m a bad driver and someday, somebody is going to get hurt. When this happens it will be my fault.”
Now, let’s take a bad example. A person who physically abuses others to the point where there can be no denial. Their arguments are the same as the bad driver, but the logic is deeply flawed, “The rest of my life is great and this is my one escape.” It would be clear to an outside observer that the person making that statement has mental issues or they are truly evil.
The point is that bad people cannot confront the fact that they themselves are truly bad. This is because evolution has provided humans with a mental defense that allows us to tolerate our choices. Otherwise, people would have guilt trips all day long.
There are many examples of this denial in real life. An interview with a serial killer will be full of logic behind their bad actions. Interviews with the great oppressive leaders are loaded with lofty illogical reasons for their cruelty.
A good protagonist builds upon the foundation of a bad person who has the mindset that they’re just fine. Their abhorrent actions make perfect sense to themselves. From there, the writer applies motivation. A good protagonist has the same motivations as us, but they apply their motivation differently. For example, a good person tries to get ahead with hard work while a bad person gets ahead with shortcuts. A good person uses their mind to solve problems while a bad person steals the teachers answer key. A good person feels good by helping others while a bad person feels superior by hurting others. It should be noted that the protagonist typically doesn’t have low intelligence. It is more likely that a protagonist will have an apparent low intelligence and use their mind in creative ways to compensate which reveals high intelligence. This lazy overcompensation is a core trait.
A protagonist must be relatable to the reader. The reader might have a relative or a coworker that acts just like the protagonist in the story. Well, what about a super-protagonist like Darth Vader or Saddam Hussain? In my humble writings, I try to stay from super/extreme characters because I feel readers are less likely to relate to them in real life.
My closest attempt at an extreme character is in my first book, Interviewing Immortality. My protagonist appears as a dominatrix serial killer. Later, it’s revealed that she is actually not super evil [at least in her mind.] The majority of the book is spent discussing this point. However, she is by definition an extreme character. Her level of violence is far above normal and her attitude contains a thin sliver of compassion. By the end of the book, the reader isn’t fully convinced that she’s a good person. However, the reader clearly understands the motives behind her wickedness.
Does this mean that the reader needs to like the protagonist? Generally, they shouldn’t. The protagonist serves as a foil to the other characters. They give the plot motive and their actions build the other characters.
Can there be a story that focuses on the protagonist? Sure, they can be the main character or whatever the plot requires. The protagonist in my first book was the main character and she was built on a careful foundation. There were very specific reasons for her actions, however, when confronted, she was reluctant to accept responsibility. She would never say, “I did it because I’m mean.” She would say, “The people who I hurt deserved to be hurt.” Why is this motivation angle so important? Why can’t she simply be bad? Simple, readers don’t relate to the logic of a normal bad person. In real life, a criminal commits a robbery. Our only desire is to lock them up. We don’t care about their life’s story and we have no empathy. The only part of the story we enjoy is the chase to locate the criminal.
Well, what about crime dramas? In general, stories of that type focus on the police and not on the criminal. What about Hannibal Lecter? Readers got a front row seat into his insanity. He is clearly a twisted person trying to taunt the police and he is the entire story. To me, that story is an exception. Perhaps I am blinded by the fact that I don’t like those kinds of stories. To me, a great story involves converting the reader to relate to the protagonist. Readers like to be lead down an exciting path. They generally dislike confusion, illogical plots, incomplete characters, bad people [characters we hate so much that we put down the book] and missing information.
Well, what about crazy people or people who are normally mean? My advice is to use characters of this type sparingly. For example, in my fifth book Kim and Gabe Thrive (which is now in the writing phase) my main character is pumping gas when a random protagonist insulted her. She delivers an insult back and drives away without any further interaction.
The protagonist served to show that the main character is strong; specifically as a good example to her daughter as a mother who doesn’t accept insults. If there was a need for further interaction of that protagonist, their background would have been revealed. Otherwise, readers would be confused by the main character. Is she the type of woman who attracts random bad people? Is she living in an area that is full of bad people? It’s best not to leave the reader guessing. Because, in reality, readers go to the gas station all the time without confrontation.
Well, what about a confused protagonist? They are walking along, minding their own business and they do something bad without any apparent motivation. In real life, there are a few people who have this trait. It’s my opinion that readers would have a hard time relating to this kind of character. Well, what about a supernatural story where characters are mean all the time? Say a dystopian reality. For this type of story, the author would have to lay out a different foundation. In crazy world, everybody’s a jerk and now the story makes sense.
What about a super villain like the type that James Bond would encounter? They want to cause an earthquake and are holding the world for ransom. If a reader analyzes a story of this type, there is always a foundation and logic behind the protagonist’s actions. In general, this type of protagonist had a bad childhood and spent their life over compensating. The logic behind their specific motives revolves around a disliked group of people and they use their power to inflict pain on this same group. In this extreme case, the reader doesn’t necessarily relate to the protagonist, but they do respect their logic even if it is vastly flawed.
What about a real life super villain Saddam Hussain or Jeffery Dahmer. Reality is a bit muddy in this area. Are they crazy, power hungry or over compensating? Hard to say, but what is clear is that real life people like that are very different from a James Bond’s protagonist. This difference is in the level of control they have over their lives and the impact of their actions. When James Bond’s protagonist causes an earthquake, the world sends James Bond after him. If Saddam Hussain caused an earthquake, the media would have over the top coverage until the armies of the world put a stop to him.
There are of course protagonist that doesn’t fit the traditional mold. The anti-hero. For example, the character Mad Max is kind of bad and kind of good. Or the super nice person who makes us feel terrible. A dentist who inflicts a lot of pain to make a tooth feel better. Characters like this are kind of in their own class and their motivations are complex and perhaps outside this discussion.
So where does this all lead us? A good protagonist needs to have a clear foundation, a clear motive and should be relatable. The writer needs to have a goal for the protagonist; essentially define what they are going to do for the story. By the end of the story, the reader should have fully understood their motives.
How does that relate to real life? Characters in books are mirrors of our reality. They should stretch the bonds and allow us to reflect. What about me? Am I a protagonist? I know I’ve made mistakes and I like to be in control. If I were to be honest with myself, on the scale of real people, I’m a B+. I have room to grow and I try hard to live a good life that’s not at the expense of others. I also try very hard to treat people with respect and help out where I can. Wait a minute. I do write books that contain stories about bad people. They torture, kill and aren’t productive members of society. Am I in denial of my true self and really a bad person? Denial is the greatest trait of a protagonist. Hmm. Something to think about.
My Russian Characters
When I wrote my first book, I needed to give the main character a great background from the 1500’s. Specifically, she needed to have a humble childhood foundation to allow her to become a powerful woman. Many years ago, I came across an astounding Smithsonian website featuring 3 part color photographs from the 1800’s by Sergei Mikhailovich Prokudin-Gorskii.
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collectio...
These early photographs have been painstakingly restored to show breathtaking images of Rural Russia. I used these photographs as inspiration as I pictured my main character growing up in this simple time. In the sequel, my other main character goes searching for her all across Russia. Then in my third book, there are Russian spies. It is clear to my readers that I have a lot of Russian influence in my character development.
Did I intentionally concentrate on Russians? To me, I thought it was a random choice. However, when I took some time to think about this fact and it’s clear that I do like Russian characters. I like their inner strength, their culture, and their vast country. As for the people, I treat them as reserved, intelligent and very perceptive.
What about the Cold War and communist aspect? I generally tread lightly in this area. My characters regret their negative past and have moved on to new challenges. For modern Russian culture, I view it as transforming into something new and powerful. This epic transformation contains a lot of great material and in my third book, I use this transition as a backdrop for the entire story.
I think it’s important for a character to have pride in themselves. When I think of a typical Russian, I picture a strong person with a deep connection to their heritage. I think this gives them tremendous inner strength. Russia has had many accomplishments and their influence is vast. In looking back on my writings, I like all of my Russian characters because they come from a rich culture that’s instantly recognizable. It’s clear that my writing will contain future characters with Russian backgrounds. In writing this blog, it is also now clear to me why I have so many of them.
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collectio...
These early photographs have been painstakingly restored to show breathtaking images of Rural Russia. I used these photographs as inspiration as I pictured my main character growing up in this simple time. In the sequel, my other main character goes searching for her all across Russia. Then in my third book, there are Russian spies. It is clear to my readers that I have a lot of Russian influence in my character development.
Did I intentionally concentrate on Russians? To me, I thought it was a random choice. However, when I took some time to think about this fact and it’s clear that I do like Russian characters. I like their inner strength, their culture, and their vast country. As for the people, I treat them as reserved, intelligent and very perceptive.
What about the Cold War and communist aspect? I generally tread lightly in this area. My characters regret their negative past and have moved on to new challenges. For modern Russian culture, I view it as transforming into something new and powerful. This epic transformation contains a lot of great material and in my third book, I use this transition as a backdrop for the entire story.
I think it’s important for a character to have pride in themselves. When I think of a typical Russian, I picture a strong person with a deep connection to their heritage. I think this gives them tremendous inner strength. Russia has had many accomplishments and their influence is vast. In looking back on my writings, I like all of my Russian characters because they come from a rich culture that’s instantly recognizable. It’s clear that my writing will contain future characters with Russian backgrounds. In writing this blog, it is also now clear to me why I have so many of them.
I Love to Self-Edit
I can spend hours self-editing. I am constantly tweaking sentences and making other little adjustments. There is no pressure to create something new and I can make any change I want. To me, this process is relaxing and the best part of being an author.
I read countless posts where other authors hate to self-edit. They find it tedious and boring. I have also read posts from authors that meticulously self-edit for years. I suspect these authors have had more experience with critics dramatically pointing out their errors and it gives them much anguish. I have had some harsh criticism, but not at an extreme level. Perhaps that is why the process is still fun as there is no real pressure.
I make at least 20 passes before my book goes to my beta reader. The main improvement revolves around the flow. I try to ease the burden on the reader so they are not distracted by confusing sentences. Often this means moving, expanding, breaking up and combing sentences. While the same information is still conveyed, the sentences read much better.
Another aspect I check on is the logic. Last night, I discovered that I had been referring to rooms on a ship as bedrooms and not cabins. A simple search found all the instances where I had made this obvious mistake. Last week I found a subtle issue where the character was lying down and they walked away. I changed it to say they stood up and then walked away. While this may not seem like a major issue, it is a good example of something a reader should never encounter. Logic errors disrupt a reader’s concentration. A big error can upset a reader and translate to a bad review.
Another pass revolved around facts. Ideally, a book will be read by many people. These people will have wide backgrounds, vast experiences, and a completely independent perspective. So, it is very important to check every single fact before a reader gets it.
The majority of my self-editing starts by randomly selecting a page and start reading. I find all kinds of little things to change. During this time, I have no plan. Sometimes, I jump to another section and sometimes, I jump to another book.
Overall, this process is still fun. I do get a bit of a kick when I stumble across a good mistake. I clean it up and there is satisfaction over fixing the problem. Later, when I re-read that section, I can see the improvement. I think in a well-written work; the words seem to glide rather than bunch up.
Of course, with a big book, there are hundreds of opportunities to make all kinds of mistakes and eventually, the author has to stop self-editing. To me, that is a sad day. It is also a happy day because others can now view my work. Intimidating? Of course, it is, but all that hard work pays off with a nice compliment.
I read countless posts where other authors hate to self-edit. They find it tedious and boring. I have also read posts from authors that meticulously self-edit for years. I suspect these authors have had more experience with critics dramatically pointing out their errors and it gives them much anguish. I have had some harsh criticism, but not at an extreme level. Perhaps that is why the process is still fun as there is no real pressure.
I make at least 20 passes before my book goes to my beta reader. The main improvement revolves around the flow. I try to ease the burden on the reader so they are not distracted by confusing sentences. Often this means moving, expanding, breaking up and combing sentences. While the same information is still conveyed, the sentences read much better.
Another aspect I check on is the logic. Last night, I discovered that I had been referring to rooms on a ship as bedrooms and not cabins. A simple search found all the instances where I had made this obvious mistake. Last week I found a subtle issue where the character was lying down and they walked away. I changed it to say they stood up and then walked away. While this may not seem like a major issue, it is a good example of something a reader should never encounter. Logic errors disrupt a reader’s concentration. A big error can upset a reader and translate to a bad review.
Another pass revolved around facts. Ideally, a book will be read by many people. These people will have wide backgrounds, vast experiences, and a completely independent perspective. So, it is very important to check every single fact before a reader gets it.
The majority of my self-editing starts by randomly selecting a page and start reading. I find all kinds of little things to change. During this time, I have no plan. Sometimes, I jump to another section and sometimes, I jump to another book.
Overall, this process is still fun. I do get a bit of a kick when I stumble across a good mistake. I clean it up and there is satisfaction over fixing the problem. Later, when I re-read that section, I can see the improvement. I think in a well-written work; the words seem to glide rather than bunch up.
Of course, with a big book, there are hundreds of opportunities to make all kinds of mistakes and eventually, the author has to stop self-editing. To me, that is a sad day. It is also a happy day because others can now view my work. Intimidating? Of course, it is, but all that hard work pays off with a nice compliment.
Writing A Character Biography
In my last blog, I examined how an outline helps the book writing process. In this blog, I will attempt to show how I define characters at this early stage. As an example, I created three characters loosely based on my fourth book outline. So, let’s begin in an incorrect way. The character biography for James is: American, 31 years old, 6’ 2” tall, brown curly hair, black shirt, thin, in great shape, walks tall and lives in a modest home. While this is a good sentence for a book, that isn’t what we are looking for. What we need is overall details and interaction with other characters. With that in mind, here are three basic character biographies:
Grace
Type: Strong, smart, middle-aged.
Interactions:
* James. Likes him, loans him money, wants to take their relationship further.
* Pincushion man. Avoids him, talks down to him.
Traits: Talks with a Russian accent, dresses well, likes good food.
Strengths: Has a great perception, art/music expert, a good business person.
Limitations: Can’t get over the loss of her husband, unknown health issue.
Background: Born Russia, grew up on a rural farm, has a summer house that James has been to.
Occupation: Buy/sell art and music.
Desires: Make more money, get control of Pincushion man shipping operation.
James
Type: Average guy, not too bright, middle-aged.
* Pincushion man. Taken prisoner by him, intimidated by him.
* Grace. Met at the bookstore, initially intimidated by her, now at a basic level of respect.
Traits: Has a low opinion of himself, always complaining.
Strengths: Street smart, a good writer, great at getting information out of people, easy to talk to.
Limitations: No money, terrible friends, bad X wife, not good with money.
Background: Lives Seattle in a small house, moved around a lot as a child.
Occupation: Best Buy.
Desires: Write a great book, make enough money to make it through the day.
Pincushion man
Type: Greedy, driven, dominating, old.
* James. Wants to get secret from him, treats him as a servant.
* Grace. Does not understand her, cannot relate to her goals.
Traits: Addicted to acupuncture, cheep, appreciates art, arrogant, selfish.
Strengths: Great at organizing, can immediately spot weakness.
Limitations: In poor health, bad at business, cannot relate to others.
Background: Born a long time ago in China, unhealthy.
Occupation: Independently wealthy, shipping.
Desires: Gain as much power and land as possible.
At this stage, I did not have a name for the “pincushion man” character and I used this as a placeholder.
As you can see, there is an of detail lot missing, including their appearance. At this early outline stage, we are only concerned about the aspects that directly affect the plot. When the writing begins, the fine details will be created.
When creating a character, I like to start with somebody I know. This could be a fictional character or a real person. I then think about their traits and expand on them to fit the story. The key is to build a mental picture and then use the character biography as a reference.
A big part of the character is how they interact with each other. From the above example, it is clear that the characters aren’t friends, but they have commonalities. That particular type of interaction was dictated by the plot. Friendly characters would have more personal interactions and background. Such as, James is married to Grace’s brother, Pincushion man.
Not all characters need a detailed background. Let’s look at a more basic example.
Smith Family
Mother: Tara; Fun, open-minded, kind.
Father: Greg; Reserved, easy going, knows baseball.
Daughter: Sarah; Pretty, dresses well.
Dog: Spots.
Relationships: They live next door to James.
Minor characters
Patrick: James friend from a baseball game
Julia Rogers: Graces helper
Mr. Crowley: Pincushion man’s butler
It is key to record short biographies like this. This keeps all the character names separate and shows the relationships between the characters. For example, it would be difficult for the reader if the father Greg Smith was named James Smith. Readers might think: Main character James is married and has a daughter Sarah? When did that happen?
Now that we have established the character biographies we can see how they interact with the plot outline. At this stage, plot experiments can be conducted and major changes can be made. For example, a character can change gender, occupation or their background. This allows for a targeted character that fully compliments the plot.
Now that we have the character biography’s, we can begin writing. When it comes time to introduce “pincushion man,” we have the foundation and can give him a proper name. As the book progresses, character additions are made. For example, James needs to have next door neighbors. The author then creates the Smith Family. A quick biography addition is made with their background.
At the end of the book, all the characters should be captured in this biography. A quick check will show that all the names are distinct and the interactions make sense. It will also help in the editing process to keep things straight.
Overall, a character biography does take a small amount of time to create, but it is a key development tool. It makes the writing and outline process a lot easier. This allows the writer to focus on creating a great story that flows from one character to the next. I have had great luck with this technique and I plan to make better use of it in the future.
Grace
Type: Strong, smart, middle-aged.
Interactions:
* James. Likes him, loans him money, wants to take their relationship further.
* Pincushion man. Avoids him, talks down to him.
Traits: Talks with a Russian accent, dresses well, likes good food.
Strengths: Has a great perception, art/music expert, a good business person.
Limitations: Can’t get over the loss of her husband, unknown health issue.
Background: Born Russia, grew up on a rural farm, has a summer house that James has been to.
Occupation: Buy/sell art and music.
Desires: Make more money, get control of Pincushion man shipping operation.
James
Type: Average guy, not too bright, middle-aged.
* Pincushion man. Taken prisoner by him, intimidated by him.
* Grace. Met at the bookstore, initially intimidated by her, now at a basic level of respect.
Traits: Has a low opinion of himself, always complaining.
Strengths: Street smart, a good writer, great at getting information out of people, easy to talk to.
Limitations: No money, terrible friends, bad X wife, not good with money.
Background: Lives Seattle in a small house, moved around a lot as a child.
Occupation: Best Buy.
Desires: Write a great book, make enough money to make it through the day.
Pincushion man
Type: Greedy, driven, dominating, old.
* James. Wants to get secret from him, treats him as a servant.
* Grace. Does not understand her, cannot relate to her goals.
Traits: Addicted to acupuncture, cheep, appreciates art, arrogant, selfish.
Strengths: Great at organizing, can immediately spot weakness.
Limitations: In poor health, bad at business, cannot relate to others.
Background: Born a long time ago in China, unhealthy.
Occupation: Independently wealthy, shipping.
Desires: Gain as much power and land as possible.
At this stage, I did not have a name for the “pincushion man” character and I used this as a placeholder.
As you can see, there is an of detail lot missing, including their appearance. At this early outline stage, we are only concerned about the aspects that directly affect the plot. When the writing begins, the fine details will be created.
When creating a character, I like to start with somebody I know. This could be a fictional character or a real person. I then think about their traits and expand on them to fit the story. The key is to build a mental picture and then use the character biography as a reference.
A big part of the character is how they interact with each other. From the above example, it is clear that the characters aren’t friends, but they have commonalities. That particular type of interaction was dictated by the plot. Friendly characters would have more personal interactions and background. Such as, James is married to Grace’s brother, Pincushion man.
Not all characters need a detailed background. Let’s look at a more basic example.
Smith Family
Mother: Tara; Fun, open-minded, kind.
Father: Greg; Reserved, easy going, knows baseball.
Daughter: Sarah; Pretty, dresses well.
Dog: Spots.
Relationships: They live next door to James.
Minor characters
Patrick: James friend from a baseball game
Julia Rogers: Graces helper
Mr. Crowley: Pincushion man’s butler
It is key to record short biographies like this. This keeps all the character names separate and shows the relationships between the characters. For example, it would be difficult for the reader if the father Greg Smith was named James Smith. Readers might think: Main character James is married and has a daughter Sarah? When did that happen?
Now that we have established the character biographies we can see how they interact with the plot outline. At this stage, plot experiments can be conducted and major changes can be made. For example, a character can change gender, occupation or their background. This allows for a targeted character that fully compliments the plot.
Now that we have the character biography’s, we can begin writing. When it comes time to introduce “pincushion man,” we have the foundation and can give him a proper name. As the book progresses, character additions are made. For example, James needs to have next door neighbors. The author then creates the Smith Family. A quick biography addition is made with their background.
At the end of the book, all the characters should be captured in this biography. A quick check will show that all the names are distinct and the interactions make sense. It will also help in the editing process to keep things straight.
Overall, a character biography does take a small amount of time to create, but it is a key development tool. It makes the writing and outline process a lot easier. This allows the writer to focus on creating a great story that flows from one character to the next. I have had great luck with this technique and I plan to make better use of it in the future.
Most Authors Are Goodhearted People
Years ago, I recall a coffee mug “Workers got to do what they got to do and authors write about it from the sidelines.” In essence, it was implying that the authors were backseat drivers. I thought it was funny at the time.
I have since reflected about what it takes to be an author and I have read many posts on the Facebook group Writers Helping Writers. This has given me a deeper understanding of the mindset of authors and I now have a better grasp of that type of person.
With this newfound perspective, I have concluded that most authors are goodhearted people. I think this is because they create an ideal mental world for their plot to unfold. For this unfolding to properly occur, there needs to be hope. The real hope that an author has is to make sure their plot will be enjoyable to the readers. In my opinion, this kind of undertaking is only suited to a person with a good outlook on life. It is also suited toward a person who wants to add to this wonderful world.
Now, a person reading this blog might think there are books about: horror, conflict, criminals, death, imprisonment and all kinds of unpleasant topics. Some of these stories are trashy, have bad morals and overall treat people poorly. All true.
Let’s take an example of the popular novel Frankenstein's Monster by Mary Shelley. In its day, this book was considered a horrific gory display of terror that crossed every ethical boundary. How did the story end? The monster died, people kind of learned from their mistakes and everything went back to normal. Dracula, The Exorcist, Friday the 13th, The Shining, It and the Silence of the Lambs all follow the same pattern. There is an overall drive to make the world a better place in the face of danger.
Why didn’t Frankenstein's monster dig up a bunch of bodies, animate them and take over the world? There are some books with plots of this nature, but in my opinion, that is just not how authors think. Even the bad books have characters that overcome adversity, survive, thrive and help others.
What about truly awful authors? Or the authors who intentionally create deplorable works? Well, of course, there will always be exceptions to the rule. Some authors don’t fit the mold of being good people. What about books that are written for revenge, shock value, manipulation or terror? That’s also an exception. An evil person is simply using another tool to spread their hate.
When a person sets out to be an author, I fell they have an overall goal to contribute. The authors I have encountered want to add to the world in some way. Their contribution may not be successful, but there is an honest attempt at being positive.
Does that truly make an author a person with a good heart? Do they have better ethics when compared to the average person? Let’s take another group. I am an Electrical Engineer and I find people like me to be logical, driven and passionate about their profession. Overall, we try to make the world a better place. Have we created weapons that have killed thousands of people? Sure. Have we created devices that have made our lives much better? Of course. Do we have better ethics and values when compared to the average person? In my opinion, yes.
Well, I am kind of writing myself into a hole. If you pick any group of people, I am sure the same argument would apply. The sailing club, rose growers, street racers, target shooters… Anybody except drug dealers could make that same argument that their group contains mainly goodhearted people.
I think the point that I was trying to make was that I noticed a deep inner core when I began reading the posts on Writers Helping Writers. There was a drive to contribute, perfect and make the world a better place by creating a good book. In essence, my opinion changed from thinking that authors were people on the sidelines commenting on life to people who wanted to make life better.
As a result of becoming a writer, I think more about my life and the people around me. I can see a change for the better in how I perceive people and what I wish to accomplish. An interesting revelation.
I have since reflected about what it takes to be an author and I have read many posts on the Facebook group Writers Helping Writers. This has given me a deeper understanding of the mindset of authors and I now have a better grasp of that type of person.
With this newfound perspective, I have concluded that most authors are goodhearted people. I think this is because they create an ideal mental world for their plot to unfold. For this unfolding to properly occur, there needs to be hope. The real hope that an author has is to make sure their plot will be enjoyable to the readers. In my opinion, this kind of undertaking is only suited to a person with a good outlook on life. It is also suited toward a person who wants to add to this wonderful world.
Now, a person reading this blog might think there are books about: horror, conflict, criminals, death, imprisonment and all kinds of unpleasant topics. Some of these stories are trashy, have bad morals and overall treat people poorly. All true.
Let’s take an example of the popular novel Frankenstein's Monster by Mary Shelley. In its day, this book was considered a horrific gory display of terror that crossed every ethical boundary. How did the story end? The monster died, people kind of learned from their mistakes and everything went back to normal. Dracula, The Exorcist, Friday the 13th, The Shining, It and the Silence of the Lambs all follow the same pattern. There is an overall drive to make the world a better place in the face of danger.
Why didn’t Frankenstein's monster dig up a bunch of bodies, animate them and take over the world? There are some books with plots of this nature, but in my opinion, that is just not how authors think. Even the bad books have characters that overcome adversity, survive, thrive and help others.
What about truly awful authors? Or the authors who intentionally create deplorable works? Well, of course, there will always be exceptions to the rule. Some authors don’t fit the mold of being good people. What about books that are written for revenge, shock value, manipulation or terror? That’s also an exception. An evil person is simply using another tool to spread their hate.
When a person sets out to be an author, I fell they have an overall goal to contribute. The authors I have encountered want to add to the world in some way. Their contribution may not be successful, but there is an honest attempt at being positive.
Does that truly make an author a person with a good heart? Do they have better ethics when compared to the average person? Let’s take another group. I am an Electrical Engineer and I find people like me to be logical, driven and passionate about their profession. Overall, we try to make the world a better place. Have we created weapons that have killed thousands of people? Sure. Have we created devices that have made our lives much better? Of course. Do we have better ethics and values when compared to the average person? In my opinion, yes.
Well, I am kind of writing myself into a hole. If you pick any group of people, I am sure the same argument would apply. The sailing club, rose growers, street racers, target shooters… Anybody except drug dealers could make that same argument that their group contains mainly goodhearted people.
I think the point that I was trying to make was that I noticed a deep inner core when I began reading the posts on Writers Helping Writers. There was a drive to contribute, perfect and make the world a better place by creating a good book. In essence, my opinion changed from thinking that authors were people on the sidelines commenting on life to people who wanted to make life better.
As a result of becoming a writer, I think more about my life and the people around me. I can see a change for the better in how I perceive people and what I wish to accomplish. An interesting revelation.
Character Flaws
In real life, people have many flaws. Some we can correct; some we can mask and others we cannot correct. A big part of our personality involves overcoming, putting up with, and dealing with our own flaws. A big part of our lives involves dealing with and attempting to correct other people’s faults.
For example, I hate cars with loud exhausts. Should I recognize that I have a flaw and ignore the noise? Live and let live. Mmm, no. I despise people who intentionally change their cars/motorcycles to be louder. What do I do about it? Well…not that much. Is this a personal flaw? It certainly is.
When developing a character, it is essential to focus on their flaws. Readers need to know the reasons behind a character’s motivation and character flaws are the key to explaining decisions. Jane steals a car. Why did she turn to the life of crime? Has she stolen vehicles before? A writer must explain Jane’s ethics in advance so that her actions make sense.
Readers dislike actions without foundation. If Jane had a normal day and randomly stole a car, it would confuse the reader. What about a logical explanation? Jane needed money and stole a car. While logical, this explanation does not help. Lots of people need money, and they do not steal. Something inside Jane must allow her to be a criminal.
When I create a character, I think a lot about their flaws, and I like to point them out as early as possible. I also like to limit the number of characters flaws. For example, the principal character in a recent book lacks confidence, is a know-it-all, and has difficulty around women. His appearance, actions, and background are otherwise normal.
When he makes a mistake, we can directly trace it to the above flaws. Of course, in real life, people are more complicated with backstories that begin before birth. However, taking 100 pages to describe a character’s nuances would bore a reader.
I like flaws that people can relate to. For example, arrogance, low morals, lack of confidence, greed, perfectionist, workaholic, bad finances, gambling, and addiction. I stay away from complex flaws: mental problems, complex childhoods, evil influence, altered physics (non-human flaws), heavy religion and bullying. I also avoid controversial flaws: racism, sadistic abuse, and mental/physical disabilities. This can lead to hurt feelings and bad reviews.
In my experience, the flaws are the most important part of a character’s background. Picking the exact flaws takes a light touch and the mark of an excellent writer. Too many, few, heavy, light, complex, or basic will confuse the reader. Yet, not enough flaws lead to a bland character or a character that readers dislike.
For example, Superman. He has good looks, a superb job, a girlfriend, a friendly attitude and his only weakness is Kryptonite. John McClain in the movie Die Hard was an arrogant drunk with a terrible temper. When John wins, we can all get behind the fact that he overcame his issues. We expect Superman to win because he has nothing preventing him.
A character that overcomes many flaws seems unrealistic like they were cheating or got outside help. A character with silly flaws is also difficult to relate to. My good looks intimidate people. I have too much money.
In real life, flaws are a hindrance, and we spend a lot of time dealing with them, yet in a book, they are a fun part of the plot. Is that life imitating art? Or something else?
For example, I hate cars with loud exhausts. Should I recognize that I have a flaw and ignore the noise? Live and let live. Mmm, no. I despise people who intentionally change their cars/motorcycles to be louder. What do I do about it? Well…not that much. Is this a personal flaw? It certainly is.
When developing a character, it is essential to focus on their flaws. Readers need to know the reasons behind a character’s motivation and character flaws are the key to explaining decisions. Jane steals a car. Why did she turn to the life of crime? Has she stolen vehicles before? A writer must explain Jane’s ethics in advance so that her actions make sense.
Readers dislike actions without foundation. If Jane had a normal day and randomly stole a car, it would confuse the reader. What about a logical explanation? Jane needed money and stole a car. While logical, this explanation does not help. Lots of people need money, and they do not steal. Something inside Jane must allow her to be a criminal.
When I create a character, I think a lot about their flaws, and I like to point them out as early as possible. I also like to limit the number of characters flaws. For example, the principal character in a recent book lacks confidence, is a know-it-all, and has difficulty around women. His appearance, actions, and background are otherwise normal.
When he makes a mistake, we can directly trace it to the above flaws. Of course, in real life, people are more complicated with backstories that begin before birth. However, taking 100 pages to describe a character’s nuances would bore a reader.
I like flaws that people can relate to. For example, arrogance, low morals, lack of confidence, greed, perfectionist, workaholic, bad finances, gambling, and addiction. I stay away from complex flaws: mental problems, complex childhoods, evil influence, altered physics (non-human flaws), heavy religion and bullying. I also avoid controversial flaws: racism, sadistic abuse, and mental/physical disabilities. This can lead to hurt feelings and bad reviews.
In my experience, the flaws are the most important part of a character’s background. Picking the exact flaws takes a light touch and the mark of an excellent writer. Too many, few, heavy, light, complex, or basic will confuse the reader. Yet, not enough flaws lead to a bland character or a character that readers dislike.
For example, Superman. He has good looks, a superb job, a girlfriend, a friendly attitude and his only weakness is Kryptonite. John McClain in the movie Die Hard was an arrogant drunk with a terrible temper. When John wins, we can all get behind the fact that he overcame his issues. We expect Superman to win because he has nothing preventing him.
A character that overcomes many flaws seems unrealistic like they were cheating or got outside help. A character with silly flaws is also difficult to relate to. My good looks intimidate people. I have too much money.
In real life, flaws are a hindrance, and we spend a lot of time dealing with them, yet in a book, they are a fun part of the plot. Is that life imitating art? Or something else?
Throwing Characters Into a Plot
There are endless varieties of plot types. For example, when multiple characters react to an everyday event. Spy novels have complex plots with many interactions. Mystery novels feed the reader scraps and challenge them to uncover hidden motivations. The classic plot uses three acts to form a complete story.
Of course, I take a unique approach. I start with basic characters, get the readers comfortable with their backgrounds, and then throw them into an unpleasant situation. They react, struggle, and pick up the pieces. Some things happen, and I throw them into another bad situation, followed by another. By the end of the book, they are beaten up and confused. Only then can readers enjoy a nice epilogue.
A few writers appreciate this kind of story. Die Hard with Bruce Willis follows a police officer with issues to an office party. Then he gets hit with all kinds of chaos. Back to the Future with Michael J. Fox has a kid with a crazy friend having a tough time getting his band a gig. Then he is transported back in time.
As a reader, I enjoy these kinds of plots because I can imagine myself taking part in the action. I find it difficult to relate to an outlandish character like James Bond, who glides around danger without consequences. It is perfectly natural for James to parachute out of an airplane onto a speeding train and then have a cup of tea. In actual life, such a feat would require an infinite amount of confidence, skill, luck, training, and support. Even a well-trained special forces soldier would have difficulty performing such a feat. They defiantly would not calmly drink a cup of tea afterward. I cannot imagine any of my readers or myself possessing such an extreme skillset, which makes the story difficult to relate to.
I can imagine being in a plane that is about to crash, having no choice but to save my life by parachuting out and finding that the only place to land is a speeding train. These dire circumstances would force me to react. Is this realistic? No, but it is remotely possible. Bad guys have forced people onto unsafe planes, forced to jump out of airplanes, and trains move all day long. Therefore, I can imagine a character thrust into a horrific situation and surviving.
A person can go from a known place to an unknown place. Right now, I am at my comfortable desk, and by the end of the day, I could be forced to parachute onto a speeding train. (I probably would die in the process.) My point is that I would never plan for such an event and would only attempt such an action to save my life.
When developing a plot, it is impossible to go from unknown to unknown. For example, Darth Vader waking up on the death star. I am never going to be in a different galaxy, a supervillain, or wake up on the death star. I dislike plots that go from unknown to known. For example, if I woke up on an alien planet and tried to get back to earth. I guess this is remotely possible, but unrealistic and more to the point; it is difficult for readers to follow this path.
For 99% of us, our daily lives are boring. The 1% exception is people with action careers such as firefighters, emergency room doctors, soldiers, or police. There are thrill-seekers and people who demand drama. I still consider those to occupy 1%. However, our lives do contain worthy events like car crashes, family members passing away, fires, or terrible arguments. Also, random awful things can happen, such as a kidnapping.
Let’s examine a typical major event. On the drive to work, Tim’s tire blows out, and he hits a tree. Let’s build on that idea. An angry driver cuts Tim off, and he swerves into a school bus causing it to catch fine. Let’s create some more. One of the dead students has a mob boss, father, and he wants justice. Is that combination of unlikely events possible? It is a remote possibility. However, the story would certainly be dramatic and a good read.
During my plot creation phase, I push the plausibility levels to the extreme. My readers encountered a 500-year-old woman, characters on a distant planet, and a colossal spy operation. Do 500-year-old women exist? Biology says no. But how do we lead readers to such a being? I take an average person, throw them into a bad situation, and eventually, they encounter the impossible.
I imagine most authors would scoff at my approach and blatantly jump into a plot. Poof, 500-year-old woman walks into the room. Next scene. This reality disconnect makes characters like Darth Vader and James Bond possible. While I enjoy these fantasy story arcs, I have no desire to write one. I need to stand on a healthy foundation of familiar situations that allow me to leap into the unknown.
Of course, I take a unique approach. I start with basic characters, get the readers comfortable with their backgrounds, and then throw them into an unpleasant situation. They react, struggle, and pick up the pieces. Some things happen, and I throw them into another bad situation, followed by another. By the end of the book, they are beaten up and confused. Only then can readers enjoy a nice epilogue.
A few writers appreciate this kind of story. Die Hard with Bruce Willis follows a police officer with issues to an office party. Then he gets hit with all kinds of chaos. Back to the Future with Michael J. Fox has a kid with a crazy friend having a tough time getting his band a gig. Then he is transported back in time.
As a reader, I enjoy these kinds of plots because I can imagine myself taking part in the action. I find it difficult to relate to an outlandish character like James Bond, who glides around danger without consequences. It is perfectly natural for James to parachute out of an airplane onto a speeding train and then have a cup of tea. In actual life, such a feat would require an infinite amount of confidence, skill, luck, training, and support. Even a well-trained special forces soldier would have difficulty performing such a feat. They defiantly would not calmly drink a cup of tea afterward. I cannot imagine any of my readers or myself possessing such an extreme skillset, which makes the story difficult to relate to.
I can imagine being in a plane that is about to crash, having no choice but to save my life by parachuting out and finding that the only place to land is a speeding train. These dire circumstances would force me to react. Is this realistic? No, but it is remotely possible. Bad guys have forced people onto unsafe planes, forced to jump out of airplanes, and trains move all day long. Therefore, I can imagine a character thrust into a horrific situation and surviving.
A person can go from a known place to an unknown place. Right now, I am at my comfortable desk, and by the end of the day, I could be forced to parachute onto a speeding train. (I probably would die in the process.) My point is that I would never plan for such an event and would only attempt such an action to save my life.
When developing a plot, it is impossible to go from unknown to unknown. For example, Darth Vader waking up on the death star. I am never going to be in a different galaxy, a supervillain, or wake up on the death star. I dislike plots that go from unknown to known. For example, if I woke up on an alien planet and tried to get back to earth. I guess this is remotely possible, but unrealistic and more to the point; it is difficult for readers to follow this path.
For 99% of us, our daily lives are boring. The 1% exception is people with action careers such as firefighters, emergency room doctors, soldiers, or police. There are thrill-seekers and people who demand drama. I still consider those to occupy 1%. However, our lives do contain worthy events like car crashes, family members passing away, fires, or terrible arguments. Also, random awful things can happen, such as a kidnapping.
Let’s examine a typical major event. On the drive to work, Tim’s tire blows out, and he hits a tree. Let’s build on that idea. An angry driver cuts Tim off, and he swerves into a school bus causing it to catch fine. Let’s create some more. One of the dead students has a mob boss, father, and he wants justice. Is that combination of unlikely events possible? It is a remote possibility. However, the story would certainly be dramatic and a good read.
During my plot creation phase, I push the plausibility levels to the extreme. My readers encountered a 500-year-old woman, characters on a distant planet, and a colossal spy operation. Do 500-year-old women exist? Biology says no. But how do we lead readers to such a being? I take an average person, throw them into a bad situation, and eventually, they encounter the impossible.
I imagine most authors would scoff at my approach and blatantly jump into a plot. Poof, 500-year-old woman walks into the room. Next scene. This reality disconnect makes characters like Darth Vader and James Bond possible. While I enjoy these fantasy story arcs, I have no desire to write one. I need to stand on a healthy foundation of familiar situations that allow me to leap into the unknown.
Favorite Characters
When I asked myself, “Which is your favorite book character?” I immediately answered Bod in The Graveyard Book by Neil Gaiman. However, as I thought about my answer, it occurred to me I never truly connected with Bod. Instead, I connected with the excellent story.
After some contemplation, I decided my favorite character is John Wells from the spy novels by Alex Berenson. Why? At the beginning of every book, I honestly wanted John Wells to succeed. In addition, I liked his attitude, outlook, and method of handling problems.
To be complete, I should discuss my favorite movie characters. Luke Skywalker of Star Wars was my first choice. Again, as I thought about that character, I realized that I never truly connected with him. After some contemplation, it came down to two tough choices. Andy Dufresne in Stephen King's The Shawshank Redemption and Westley in The Princess Bride. Both are powerful characters, but I have a greater connection to Andy. Why? We certainly have opposing personalities, but we share a common spirit. I enjoy his eternal optimism and struggle to survive. When re-watching the movie, I still connect with him.
In the stories I created, it was a tough choice, which was my favorite. After some thought, I concluded Grace from Interviewing Immortality immediately was my favorite. We are also vastly different people, but I like her quiet, powerful nature. Her intellect commands respect, and my role models in life have this same trait. I also like her spirit and hidden inner soul.
I should also mention which of the characters I invented are at the bottom of the list. I did not have to think for a long time about this. All my villains have to compete for my dislike. When I write their dialog, I do not have much interest. Yet, I understand that Villains are essential in a story, and I probably should put more thought into them.
Connecting with characters is fun. The more we get emotionally involved, the more alive the story becomes. Of course, connecting with blog readers is also fun!
After some contemplation, I decided my favorite character is John Wells from the spy novels by Alex Berenson. Why? At the beginning of every book, I honestly wanted John Wells to succeed. In addition, I liked his attitude, outlook, and method of handling problems.
To be complete, I should discuss my favorite movie characters. Luke Skywalker of Star Wars was my first choice. Again, as I thought about that character, I realized that I never truly connected with him. After some contemplation, it came down to two tough choices. Andy Dufresne in Stephen King's The Shawshank Redemption and Westley in The Princess Bride. Both are powerful characters, but I have a greater connection to Andy. Why? We certainly have opposing personalities, but we share a common spirit. I enjoy his eternal optimism and struggle to survive. When re-watching the movie, I still connect with him.
In the stories I created, it was a tough choice, which was my favorite. After some thought, I concluded Grace from Interviewing Immortality immediately was my favorite. We are also vastly different people, but I like her quiet, powerful nature. Her intellect commands respect, and my role models in life have this same trait. I also like her spirit and hidden inner soul.
I should also mention which of the characters I invented are at the bottom of the list. I did not have to think for a long time about this. All my villains have to compete for my dislike. When I write their dialog, I do not have much interest. Yet, I understand that Villains are essential in a story, and I probably should put more thought into them.
Connecting with characters is fun. The more we get emotionally involved, the more alive the story becomes. Of course, connecting with blog readers is also fun!
Perfect Characters
Who is my favorite character? Luke Skywalker from Star Wars comes to mind. However, as I ponder this larger-than-life individual, it occurs to me he is actually an arrogant teenager. How about Andy Dufresne from the movie Shawshank Redemption? He is a stuck-up, distant, and know-it-all. Michael Westen from the TV show Burn Notice? See Andy Dufresne.
How about female leads? Joan Wilder from the movie Romancing the Stone? I would classify her as intelligent, strong, and a tad gullible. Lucy from the movie Lucy? See Joan Wilder. Princess Leia from Star Wars? See…
How about written characters like the John Wells? See Andy Dufresne. How about Jack Ryan from Tom Clancy’s novels? See…
I do not have a high opinion of my favorite characters, and yet I enjoy watching or reading about them. Where is the disconnect? In real life, people are deemed good by their positive qualities. Characters on the other hand are judged by their flaws.
For example, my father has always been a powerful figure in my life. He is smart, honorable and charismatic. Because of his endless patience, I have become a man with positive qualities. (Of course, my mother and sister are equally responsible, but we are discussing characters.) While my father and I had our differences, I would only describe him in a positive light. What if he was in a movie? Despite my high opinion, he would be an awful character. A good guy that does good. There is no imagination, drama or intrigue.
There have been many less than perfect people in my life. Let’s examine my former boss. He was a bright individual, but arrogant, and I left the company because of this flaw. (Side note. Within two years, three coworkers did the same.) However, I learned from his wisdom and use this knowledge often. I suppose I would not classify him as a truly bad person, but in a story, he would be the villain. His flaws too pounced and his victories were too mild.
In creating this blog, I took a step back to analyze my former boss. I think he could be a prominent character. There is a fine line between doing bad for good and simply being a jerk. He could have been a decent character in a movie with some tweaks.
The art of creating an excellent character is spinning the negatives into positives. In this same line of thinking, I had another boss, Steve. He was arrogant, overbearing, intolerant, and a protectionist. Yet, I would move mountains for that person. He indeed was “The Luke Skywalkers of Engineering.” The difference between my bosses was how they applied their negative traits.
So, how does an author create a well-remembered character? First, we have to set up boundaries. For example, the movie Star Wars. The two dominant factions were the Empire and Rebels. Naturally, the audience liked when the Rebel forces won battles. (Keep in mind that Empire soldiers needed to die to have a rebel victory. Thus, the Revels were not necessarily honorable.) However, in a typical company, the workers do not battle good and evil with lightsabers. Instead, the conflicts are one-on-one in meetings and emails.
Am I suggesting that directors cannot set a movie in an office? No, but there is a staggering difference between a character and a real person. Characters are larger than life, and so are their flaws. They need to shine when they succeed and tug at our hearts when they fail. The difference is the connection, which allows us to overlook the flaws. So, it is alright when Luke Skywalker acts like an arrogant teenager.
Let’s create a character like Luke Skywalker. My approach is to first look at the main plot from a high-level perspective. A leads to B leads to… When I have the basic outline, I mentally throw the characters in. The key is to think about how they are going to fail. Let’s first create an optical. The best types of obstacles are those which the character unintentionally makes. A well-thought-out poor decision is a perfect example. The readers see the thought process, the execution, and the failure. Then the resulting drama and effort to correct. Perhaps their arrogance silenced a friend's good idea and made the wrong decision? Nice.
As I fully develop the outline, the characters fall into place, and their flaws build the drama. Then their positive traits pull the hero’s through to the next scene. For the villains, it is the opposite. Their undesirable traits solve the problems, and their good qualities make the lead characters look bad.
In summary, positive characters need the perfect amount of space to let their flaws shine. As they overcome or recover from failures, their efforts cause them to stand above their peers. A touch of arrogance goes a long way, but it causes a horrible character if not applied correctly. I also prefer intelligence over luck and strength.
Should I end this blog with an arrogant message to “keep things real?” I am going to stand above that.
How about female leads? Joan Wilder from the movie Romancing the Stone? I would classify her as intelligent, strong, and a tad gullible. Lucy from the movie Lucy? See Joan Wilder. Princess Leia from Star Wars? See…
How about written characters like the John Wells? See Andy Dufresne. How about Jack Ryan from Tom Clancy’s novels? See…
I do not have a high opinion of my favorite characters, and yet I enjoy watching or reading about them. Where is the disconnect? In real life, people are deemed good by their positive qualities. Characters on the other hand are judged by their flaws.
For example, my father has always been a powerful figure in my life. He is smart, honorable and charismatic. Because of his endless patience, I have become a man with positive qualities. (Of course, my mother and sister are equally responsible, but we are discussing characters.) While my father and I had our differences, I would only describe him in a positive light. What if he was in a movie? Despite my high opinion, he would be an awful character. A good guy that does good. There is no imagination, drama or intrigue.
There have been many less than perfect people in my life. Let’s examine my former boss. He was a bright individual, but arrogant, and I left the company because of this flaw. (Side note. Within two years, three coworkers did the same.) However, I learned from his wisdom and use this knowledge often. I suppose I would not classify him as a truly bad person, but in a story, he would be the villain. His flaws too pounced and his victories were too mild.
In creating this blog, I took a step back to analyze my former boss. I think he could be a prominent character. There is a fine line between doing bad for good and simply being a jerk. He could have been a decent character in a movie with some tweaks.
The art of creating an excellent character is spinning the negatives into positives. In this same line of thinking, I had another boss, Steve. He was arrogant, overbearing, intolerant, and a protectionist. Yet, I would move mountains for that person. He indeed was “The Luke Skywalkers of Engineering.” The difference between my bosses was how they applied their negative traits.
So, how does an author create a well-remembered character? First, we have to set up boundaries. For example, the movie Star Wars. The two dominant factions were the Empire and Rebels. Naturally, the audience liked when the Rebel forces won battles. (Keep in mind that Empire soldiers needed to die to have a rebel victory. Thus, the Revels were not necessarily honorable.) However, in a typical company, the workers do not battle good and evil with lightsabers. Instead, the conflicts are one-on-one in meetings and emails.
Am I suggesting that directors cannot set a movie in an office? No, but there is a staggering difference between a character and a real person. Characters are larger than life, and so are their flaws. They need to shine when they succeed and tug at our hearts when they fail. The difference is the connection, which allows us to overlook the flaws. So, it is alright when Luke Skywalker acts like an arrogant teenager.
Let’s create a character like Luke Skywalker. My approach is to first look at the main plot from a high-level perspective. A leads to B leads to… When I have the basic outline, I mentally throw the characters in. The key is to think about how they are going to fail. Let’s first create an optical. The best types of obstacles are those which the character unintentionally makes. A well-thought-out poor decision is a perfect example. The readers see the thought process, the execution, and the failure. Then the resulting drama and effort to correct. Perhaps their arrogance silenced a friend's good idea and made the wrong decision? Nice.
As I fully develop the outline, the characters fall into place, and their flaws build the drama. Then their positive traits pull the hero’s through to the next scene. For the villains, it is the opposite. Their undesirable traits solve the problems, and their good qualities make the lead characters look bad.
In summary, positive characters need the perfect amount of space to let their flaws shine. As they overcome or recover from failures, their efforts cause them to stand above their peers. A touch of arrogance goes a long way, but it causes a horrible character if not applied correctly. I also prefer intelligence over luck and strength.
Should I end this blog with an arrogant message to “keep things real?” I am going to stand above that.
Too Fast
Yesterday, I was trying to find a grammar rule, and I came across a paragraph from the book, The Old Man and The Sea. Wow, Earnest Hemmingway certainly mastered the English language, and the excerpt made me want to reread his book. Later, I thought about Hemmingway’s words as I edited my latest book. Unfortunately, I kept encountering a familiar issue. I blast through the plot at maximum speed. This means there are no extra descriptions, emotional thoughts, or lofty sentences. Only prompt dialog along with crisp illustrations. Yikes!
What is going on? Am I a minimalist? Is my writing philosophy, “Let the readers fill in the blanks.” Dang, that last explanation hits close to home. I suppose the answer is, “yes, I think the readers should fill in the blanks.” Yet, I want to be an author who provides the reader with an excellent read. This included well-written scenes and awesome characters.
What should I do? Take writing classes? Focus more/less on outlines? How about a full edit that “fluffs up the paragraphs?” Perhaps I should read more bestselling books? More beta edits?
It is difficult to face one’s own problems, but fortunately, all solutions follow the same path. Decide to tackle the issue, collect data, form a plan, and execute. The problem is that I am still at the first stage and have not truly decided that blasting through a plot is an issue.
For example, I recently started the book Sex On The Moon by Ben Mezrich. In it, he described the fantastic story of a person who wanted to steal some NASA moon rocks. Ben launched into a grand character description with loads of background right away. This included hairstyles, options, politics, home life… The details were so thick that I needed to skip ahead a few paragraphs.
What? Why not enjoy the rich scene? Because it was boring! Let’s get to the action! Steal the rocks! Let’s go! While we are young! Now, wait a minute. What about other readers? Indeed, they would appreciate a grand description. Well… That is where we disagree, and therefore, I cannot see the issue. Readers need grand narratives for both entertainment and knowledge.
Well, this may be true, but what should I do? Writing this blog caused me to change, and I have included a “fluff up the paragraph” editing pass. This will add descriptions and hopefully not cause me too much heartache.
Is making such a tremendous change possible? Yes, and I have the proof. My initial dialog integration was a mess and now it is passable. So, I can change. So, after some “fluffing” editing passes, it will be natural to write flowery descriptions. It will probably take a year or two to take effect.
Should I end this blog on a flowery note? No. (Still resisting!)
What is going on? Am I a minimalist? Is my writing philosophy, “Let the readers fill in the blanks.” Dang, that last explanation hits close to home. I suppose the answer is, “yes, I think the readers should fill in the blanks.” Yet, I want to be an author who provides the reader with an excellent read. This included well-written scenes and awesome characters.
What should I do? Take writing classes? Focus more/less on outlines? How about a full edit that “fluffs up the paragraphs?” Perhaps I should read more bestselling books? More beta edits?
It is difficult to face one’s own problems, but fortunately, all solutions follow the same path. Decide to tackle the issue, collect data, form a plan, and execute. The problem is that I am still at the first stage and have not truly decided that blasting through a plot is an issue.
For example, I recently started the book Sex On The Moon by Ben Mezrich. In it, he described the fantastic story of a person who wanted to steal some NASA moon rocks. Ben launched into a grand character description with loads of background right away. This included hairstyles, options, politics, home life… The details were so thick that I needed to skip ahead a few paragraphs.
What? Why not enjoy the rich scene? Because it was boring! Let’s get to the action! Steal the rocks! Let’s go! While we are young! Now, wait a minute. What about other readers? Indeed, they would appreciate a grand description. Well… That is where we disagree, and therefore, I cannot see the issue. Readers need grand narratives for both entertainment and knowledge.
Well, this may be true, but what should I do? Writing this blog caused me to change, and I have included a “fluff up the paragraph” editing pass. This will add descriptions and hopefully not cause me too much heartache.
Is making such a tremendous change possible? Yes, and I have the proof. My initial dialog integration was a mess and now it is passable. So, I can change. So, after some “fluffing” editing passes, it will be natural to write flowery descriptions. It will probably take a year or two to take effect.
Should I end this blog on a flowery note? No. (Still resisting!)
