THE Group for Authors! discussion
The Craft
>
What Makes A Character Interesting?
Anti-heroes and conflicted villains. Characters that are gray, rather than black and white. Conflict, paradoxes, all should be considered when creating a character.
J. wrote: "Joanna wrote: "I think it was one of the Rebus books I started to read. The detective took a roll or cake or something trival from a corner shop and didn't pay for it. I hated that so much I didn't..."The comic-book writer Phil Jimenez had some scathing comments in an interview about writers who brand immoral, unprincipled protagonists as "flawed" or "complex."
Fraser wrote: "The comic-book writer Phil Jimenez had some scathing comments in an interview about writers who brand immoral, unprincipled protagonists as "flawed" or "complex.""What interview was that? Because Jiminez also said something in this vein:
American Superheroes aren’t represented to have so many flaws. instead, we see them as an icon–a theme. Some superheroes represent justice, while villains represent immorality. In Japanese manga, characters are related because they’re human–they are flawed, and therefore, we relate to them in a different way. In American comics, the superheroes are themes–ethics, morality, capitalism, religion. They’re more like metaphors represented in the character; they’re not real. They are ‘represented ideas’, icons.’
Wasn't he talking about the writers of comic books?
It was quoted in the book War, Politics and Super-heroes. Whether he had different views at different times or of different characters, I know not.
Martyn, that is changing. If you've been following some of the new American comics, you'll find that many of the superheroes are changing. Even Superman has changed, one of the least changed icons in pulp literature, who has been depicted the same for 75 years, is now presented in a more human way. He's a bit darker, he brags about his power, takes advantage of his powers, and he even kills his enemies now. I just read a Wonder Women comic where she explains how she likes to dress like a whore, because it gives her power. The boy/girl scout charm is no longer present in these characters.
I just tuned in to these comments. Very interesting re the comic book characters. And though I am a writer this is something I was out of touch with. Thanks for the comments and "explanations". :) xoox
J. wrote: "Joanna wrote: "I think it was one of the Rebus books I started to read. The detective took a roll or cake or something trival from a corner shop and didn't pay for it. I hated that so much I didn't..."J. wrote: In one of Tony Hillerman's books, his Navajo detective destroyed evidence of a crime, saying, "The insurance company will pick up the cost." I haven't read another of his books since.
I just wanted to comment that I must not have read the Hillerman novel that J. refers to, but the flaw in the Navajo detective's character wouldn't turn me away from Hillerman's books. In fact, while I'd probably want to whack the detective, I'd actually want to go on to know him better or find out why he would take such an action. Each to his own I guess. xoox
I like strong characters that present a plausible reason for their place in the story. I know a lot of readers like their heroes/heroines flawed, but the flaw can’t diminish the value of the characters part in the plot. I’ve read books, young adults seem to be filled with primary characters that you start to ask, “Why isn’t she dead?”. I like characters that exist beyond the relationship. I really like the use of sexual tension, but I want the characters to exist on their own merits, outside that interaction.
Anti-heroes, those characters that because of their more liberal moral compass are prone to do the unexpected. It opens up the range of reaction the character can exhibit. Its in explaining why the anti-hero reacted a certain way that creates depth. The all-good or all-bad characters are predictable, making them flat and cardboardish.
In the end, especially where the plot and end result are so big or grand (ie. saving the world), there’s no question why this story happened to these specific characters. I hate the everyman hero, it diminishes the quality and viability of the plot, as well as weakens the antagonist. If nothing really distinguishes a hero from anyone else, couldn’t anyone else have been the hero?
After reading all of Dan Brown's Robert Langdon books, you gotta think that a career in symbology is probably the most dangerous in the world. Other then his photographic memory, nothing really makes RL uniquely suited to be the hero (just the wrong career, wrong place, wrong time, and wrong friends) Could have been Joe Plumber.
Bodhan, are you self-promoting your book here or am I just missing something?
Fraser wrote: "J. wrote: "Joanna wrote: "I think it was one of the Rebus books I started to read. The detective took a roll or cake or something trival from a corner shop and didn't pay for it. I hated that so mu..."It was the fact that Rebus was representing the law. If someone who was poor or desperate had stolen a roll to eat it would have been different, but he did it because he could.
Kurt, I always thought Robert Langdon was a Sherlock Holmes type...there's a little analytical sociopathy going on with him, both characters are a bit narcissistic in that they get off on touting their superior thinking. I also find that both characters are unable to form long standing relationships with people.
Anton wrote: "Kurt, I always thought Robert Langdon was a Sherlock Holmes type...there's a little analytical sociopathy going on with him, both characters are a bit narcissistic in that they get off on touting t..."I understood Holmes involvement, in fact you bring up something I find a little frustrating with many protagonists in so many books. Holmes sought out the antagonist or was called in to directly solve a case, and he almost always knew full well the depth of the undertaking (the crime underfoot), while not knowing the actual mystery. He was suited for the role and drove the plot.
Where Langton is different, he never sought the antagonists, but was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, and he always had the perfect skill set (or just happened to have gone on the right tour while in France) for the the task at hand. It almost came across as stupidity on the part of the antagonist to seek out or initiate the grand scheme when Robert Langton was nearby (purely dumb luck).
Langton is symbolic of many "unlikely" protagonists in so many stories, pulled into the primary role accidentally by the antagonist, but turns out to possess the key attributes to defeat the grand scheme and the antagonist. Talk about the villain having a bad day.
I like the protagonist to drive the plot, and antagonists that actually react and alter their plans to deal with the "Fly in the ointment".
Joanna wrote: "It was the fact that Rebus was representing the law. If someone who was poor or desperate had stolen a roll to eat it would have been different, but he did it because he could."I haven't read it, but I've read some other novels where law enforcement officers are offered free food or products by shop owners. "Here, officer Gnarly, a nice steak to bring home to your wife."
I always frown on the integrity, but I don't doubt the veracity of these scenes. When I worked in bars in Amsterdam, we always left it up to the police officers and other officials to pay for their drinks/food. If they didn't, we wrote it off as 'on the house'.
I think many LEO consider those 'free drinks' to be a 'perk' of their job.
Anton wrote: "Martyn, that is changing. If you've been following some of the new American comics, you'll find that many of the superheroes are changing."As a European, I'm more into the Dutch/Flemish/French/Italian 'graphic novel' from artists like Franquin, Milo Manara, Hugo Pratt, so I don't know much about the US superhero comics. What I do think is plausible is that it may be a sign of the times. In the period of the Cold War, there were other sentiments that needed to be expressed: patriotism, heroism. But those times have gone and now comic book readers are perhaps drawn more to conflicted heroes. Or even anti-heroes.
That happens in books too. I remember reading Biggles when I was young, but even then those stories were outdated WWII books about dauntless fighter pilots. If 'Biggles' would be written for contemporary times, he'd be much more concerned by the validity of warfare and killing citizens, etcetera. In the old Biggles novels, every dead German is a Nazi who deserved to die. I don't remember any mentioning of 'collateral damage' or 'carpet-bombing cities'.
Different times, different sentiments.
Nah, I've seen that movieAnd spamming these threads with your own books tends to have negative results, rather than positive.
What makes a character interesting?When the main character does something contrary to his consistent, negative attribute. For instance, if a villain saves a damsel in distress. Or when a fearful character does something heroic. Overcoming internal weaknesses to do something remarkable adds interest.
Martyn V. wrote: "Nah, I've seen that movieAnd spamming these threads with your own books tends to have negative results, rather than positive."
Excuse me, but what movie are you referring to?
Marlowe wrote: "Martyn V. wrote: "Nah, I've seen that movieAnd spamming these threads with your own books tends to have negative results, rather than positive."
Excuse me, but what movie are you referring to?"
ALIVE (Ethan Hawke, about that plane with football players crashing in the Andes, after which they eat the dead to survive)
Martyn V. wrote: "Marlowe wrote: "Martyn V. wrote: "Nah, I've seen that movieAnd spamming these threads with your own books tends to have negative results, rather than positive."
Excuse me, but what movie are you..."
Alive
film based upon Piers Paul Read's 1974 book Alive: The Story of the Andes Survivors, which details the story of a Uruguayan rugby team who were involved in the crash of Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571, which crashed into the Andes mountains on October 13, 1972
Dianne wrote: "The word engaging just might be the summation of everything."And what makes a character "engaging"? (let's assume he is not going to give you a lot of money every two weeks)--
In a word: caring. Consistent, fierce, borderline-unreasonable caring. Not just "giving a damn": not just "sort-of interested in, for now." Life-and-death caring about whatever it is (and it might be almost anything) that character honestly believes matters more than anything else. It has to be personal, and it's the author's task and challenge to make this caring legitimate and believable for that character. Whether or not it proves fascinating to any particular reader depends as much on each reader (because we readers like what we like and what we do not like we leave alone).
I am very character motivated in a book. If I don't find one that I either love or love to dislike (or wish I could blowup), no matter the story, I'm not committed to finishing the book. Here are my thoughts about characters: a reader finds some kind of self identity in a character - I felt or thought that way or did that. A fascination with a character - Oh! I wonder what drives her? He really can do that? And the then the one we just love to hate, again, maybe the reader recalls someone similar in their life, or a character so bad the reader tries to fathom how anyone could do (whatever) and why does that character think that way. That's my reading characters thoughts.
My work-in-progress has a main character driven novel with flash fiction between each chapter. I made the main character more likeable than planned because I worried that the original version of her was so unlikeable that readers would tire of reading the novel and miss all the shorts.
John wrote: "And what makes a character "engaging"? (let's assume he is not going to give you a lot of money every two weeks)--In a word: caring."
I disagree.
An engaging character must be interesting. They must be unlike anybody you have met and you must want to follow them. They don't have to be sympathetic or likable, but they cannot be boring, or you'll put down the book.
Marlowe wrote: "Martyn V. wrote: "Nah, I've seen that movieAnd spamming these threads with your own books tends to have negative results, rather than positive."
Excuse me, but what movie are you referring to?"
Is it Lord of the Flies?
No, it's the movie ALIVE, where a sportsteam surviving a crash of their airplane in the Andes eats the dead to stay alive.
I'd say plausibility. Even heroes have weaknesses or faults. Maybe they gamble, spend too much time in houses of pleasure, have a dark secret or are mean to their horse. No one is perfect. Maybe the darklord loves his mother, is kind to kittens or is a wonderful cook. Give them depth and make them 'real'.
Mercia wrote: "My work-in-progress has a main character driven novel with flash fiction between each chapter. I made the main character more likeable than planned because I worried that the original version of he..."I had a short story rejected because they thought the protagonist was unlikeable (which he was. I had my reasons). Fortunately the next editor liked the results.
I think that the hero and villain should be separated by a fine line and they should be very similar to each other. Both should be crafted in a way that they represent a single side of a coin...and so that one cannot exist without the other.
Anton wrote: "I think that the hero and villain should be separated by a fine line and they should be very similar to each other. Both should be crafted in a way that they represent a single side of a coin...and..."In most instances, they represent different sides of a single coin. They may reflect each other, but are in no way "similar."
Fraser wrote: "I had a short story rejected because they thought the protagonist was unlikeable (which he was. I had my reasons). Fortunately the next editor liked the results."Well, this thread is about what makes a character interesting, so I think it would be equally on-topic to tell us what made your protagonist unlikeable to one editor and not the other. Tell us more, please!
June wrote: "...a reader finds some kind of self identity in a character..."I think you've put your finger on the big issue: the reader is easily able to put him/herself into the character's frame of mind or situation. Great comment.
I read this thread, everyone talks about the characteristics they like, but it so nebulous. How about your favorite character, and what made you like them?I recently read the Rook by O'Malley and came away really liking Myfanwy Thomas. The story was great with excellent character development, but what I really liked about the character was how she developed before your eyes, into an amazingly strong protagonist. All the while the back story explains how in the past she was meek and introverted. All the more enjoyable was her snarky sense of humor.
J, that's exactly what I meant. Each represents one half of the coin. And I agree June, self identity is major.
Kurt wrote: "I read this thread, everyone talks about the characteristics they like, but it so nebulous..."It is a bit, isn't it? If it weren't, every protagonist would be interesting, which isn't the case.
Anton wrote: "J, that's exactly what I meant. Each represents one half of the coin."Ah! Okay. Putting it a little more definitely, shouldn't each represent opposing aspects of the theme or the theme taken to different extremes?
J. wrote: "Ah! Okay. Putting it a little more definitely, shouldn't each represent opposing aspects of the theme or the theme taken to different extremes?"I often find that if the theme is pushed to the forefront of the story, the characters tend to get one-dimensional, i.e. the characters serving the story instead of the other way around.
Martyn V. wrote: "J. wrote: "Ah! Okay. Putting it a little more definitely, shouldn't each represent opposing aspects of the theme or the theme taken to different extremes?"I often find that if the theme is pushed..."
Well that's ok. One of the main reasons I read so much science fiction is because sci-fi is usually plot driven. A character could still very well be hated or liked if they are maintaining the story.
Martyn V. wrote: "I often find that if the theme is pushed to the forefront of the story, the characters tend to get one-dimensional, i.e. the characters serving the story instead of the other way around."Yes, theme is not a club to beat the reader over the head with. It is a statement or question about the human condition explored from all angles. Theme is usually subtle, rarely explicit. When it is stated, it's usually in dialogue, sometimes coming from a minor character, sometimes ambiguous or cryptic. Works in which only one side of a question is explored become didactic, teachy-preachy, a waste of the reader's time.
Anton wrote: "One of the main reasons I read so much science fiction is because sci-fi is usually plot driven. A character could still very well be hated or liked if they are maintaining the story. "I used to read it almost exclusively. It's a genre that often holds the reader by the sheer beauty of the science or the world created by the author. It's wonderful entertainment.
Well said J. Well said. The manner in which a character serves the story could make the reader take a closer look at themselves and consider the conflict. Most character driven stories aren't as ambiguous as plot driven ones...and they are much more black and white, right and wrong.
Anton wrote: "Most character driven stories aren't as ambiguous as plot driven ones...and they are much more black and white, right and wrong."Strange, I often find the 'plot driven' books to have the kind of characters that only serve the plot or theme. Most character driven books have (morally) ambiguous characters.
In one of my novels the main character is a female serial killer age 30 when the novel begins. I hated her, but had to give reasons why she turned to murdering anyone who rejected or caused her distress. That way I hoped readers would understand her.
Bohdan wrote: "It really depends who the reader isI am inventing a group of conspirators who hijacked Flight 370 for a new novel based on facts under way
http://www.prlog.org/12295897"
Yes, it definately does depend on who the reader is. You only have to read reviews to see how different they are.
I need to care about what happens to the characters; they don't have to be perfect, but there must be something about them that makes me get behind them. I'm reading The Beautiful and Damnedby F. Scott Fitzgerald but finding it hard to get involved with Anthony and Gloria - they just don't matter somehow.
for females:1) Having a working mind with alive brain cells
2) being brave but not stupidly brave
3)Having a specific goal in her life, not just living for the hell of it
4) Not being dump and DEPENDENT ON A GUY.
5) Not self conscious and not too shy either
6) not making beforehand judgments
Anton wrote: "Well said J. Well said...Most character driven stories aren't as ambiguous as plot driven ones...and they are much more black and white, right and wrong..."Thank you. Regarding the last sentence, I'm not sure. Anton, could you amplify on that part a bit? It's an interesting statement. I think my uncertainty orbits the meaning of 'ambiguity'."
Martyn V. wrote: "Strange, I often find the 'plot driven' books to have the kind of characters that only serve the plot or theme. Most character driven books have (morally) ambiguous characters...."
Well, of course the characters serve the plot. Novelists usually craft their characters to provide maximum drama for the given situation.
I do agree that a character-driven book will tend to have a wider spectrum of ideology. If you construct a character prior to selecting the situation, he/she will probably be more complex than if you work the other way around. Probably. There are always surprises as the book develops, if you're doing it right.
Bohdan wrote: "It really depends who the reader isI am inventing a group of conspirators who hijacked Flight 370 for a new novel based on facts under way
http://www.prlog.org/12295897"
Bohdan, is there any chance you could please explain your first sentence before going so obviously and quickly off-topic? Be a little more subtle.
Joanna wrote: "In one of my novels the main character is a female serial killer age 30 when the novel begins. I hated her, but had to give reasons why she turned to murdering anyone who rejected or caused her dis..."Did you have a "save the cat" moment?
THE Group for Authors!
Books mentioned in this topic
The Beautiful and Damned (other topics)Biggles (other topics)
Peccadillo: A Katla Novel (other topics)
You've put your finger on it, Joanna. Every character's actions in any situation must be consistent with his/her established traits and motivations.