What Makes Characters Great?

[JamesSavik]

Pop Quiz:

What stories did these characters come from?

1. Aiden & Owen

2. Evan Smiley & Aaron castle

3. Jude & Quinn

4. Dave & Tim

5. Joey & Scott

6. Brian & Pete

____________________________________________

Easy isn't it? The answers are at the bottom if you missed any. I'll bet you recognize at least several of them right off the top of your head.

What makes a character compelling and unforgettable?

How do you get to know them, care about their ups and downs, laugh with them and even cry with them?

What is is that makes you remember them years after you've read their story?

Let me know. It's an interesting question for a writer.

I think that it is a combination of a number of things: empathy for the characters, memories of someone that they might remind you of, relating to their struggles.

I would like to know what readers and writers think.

The Answers

-------------------------------------

1. Aiden & Owen: The Log Way by Dom Luka

2. Evan Smiley & Aaron castle: the Plan A, B, C and D series by Driver

3. Jude & Quinn: The Ordinary Us by Dom Luka

4. Dave & Tim: The Quarry by Driver

5. Joey & Scott: Falling Off A Log by Driver

6. Brian & Pete: Why Brian & Pete of course by Dewey

[Graeme]

I'd have to say that for me the number one thing that makes a character memorable is simply when they are individuals. It's so easy to make either all the characters the same, or to make them all stereotypes. There has to be some personality there that you can look at and recognise as being different to the others.

An example I used recently with someone was from the TV show M.A.S.H. Frank Burns was a two-dimensional character. There was no depth to him. His replacement, Charles Winchestor the Third, on the other hand, was definitely a three dimensional character. He had depth and while you could guess what he was going to do, he would surprise us every-so-often, but always in a way that (in hindsight) was in character. That uncertainty is part of what makes a character "real" and it's the "real" characters that tend to be memorable. The others just fade back into the crowd.

There are a number of ways to start to make a character stand out.

The simpliest is to give them an unusual name. The danger is if you end up making this into a gimmick, but equally it could help drive the plot ( the songe "A boy named Sue" springs to mind).

Some strong unique feature also can help. Physical features are harder to use because pictures are not generally included with the stories. I will admit I used both this and the name feature with my characters Giant and Stick in New Brother. The nicknames, and the physical characteristic that they came from, helped them stand out from the other characters in the story.

However, none of this will help unless the personalities shine through. This is, for me at least, the hardest part -- making sure each character is not a clone of the others. Their attitudes to life have to be different. Some of this can evolve through the story. I'll admit that the more I wrote, the more "complete" my visualisation of my characters in New Brother became. I had a rough idea of their personalities when I started, but I found a lot more depth as I kept writing about them.

My opinion only, of course.

Graeme

[JamesSavik]

Thanks for discussing this Graeme as characterization is a particular strength of yours.

I'm glad you brought up Giant and Stick from New Brother. Great characterization is one of the reasons that I love that story. Given their nicknames and physical descriptions, they remind me of a lot of lanky kids I knew back in the day.

They are both sympathetic characters but they have their flaws. Stick is good natured but awkward and reacts with fear and suspicion to the unknown. Giant is a real sweet kid but he wants to do things himself and is prideful and embarrassed when he needs help.

Stick is guarded and his respect is earned. Giant on the other hand is very open and quite loyal to people he considers his friends.

Not everything about a character needs to be sweetness and light. It is the flaws that define the character as realistic and human.

Another character in the story, Adam, is a another good example of flawed but sympathetic. He's been under a lot of stress so it's understandable that he's a bit cranky. Even though his circumstances are difficult, he has courage and is persistent.

NB is also a great example of dynamic characters. In the beginning of the story, Stick was not at all "gay-friendly" but through his experience, he has grown and become more tolerant.

Giant's changes are more subtle and perhaps not for the better. When he is perceived as gay and gets harassed, he gets angry and turns it inward. He changes from a happy, open boy to a sullen angry one.

[dio]

I saw this over on GA too, but that forum you posted it in is DEAD! haha So I thought I'd post my thoughts here instead -_- first post? weehaw! Hold off on stoning me ok?

I think, like you pointed out James, that all memorable characters are connected in some way to the reader. I don't necessarily think it has to be a physical description as I can't count the times I've read a piece that skimps on the description and focuses on personality, yet I STILL get a vivid mental image of the character. Rather, memorable characters are either someone we as a person can relate too whether its through experience, wishful thinking, or our personal desires.

Great characterization is the culmination of clever and consistent dialogue paired with actions that have a specific purpose that pulls in some way on our emotions. For me anyways, there has to be some sort of lasting impact. I mean, I meet people every day on campus, but only the ones I make a relationship with and who influence my way of thinking I remember. Even if they just show me a random act of kindness or cruelty, those will be the people I remember. Its the same thing for fiction.

The bully who kept punching me like I was a sac of 'taters? yup..oh do I ever remember him. My best friend in grade two? Who could forget.

The girl with red hair who sat across from me and picked her nose all day. um...not so much :o)

Above all else, the character has to be real. By that I mean they have to have flaws, make mistakes, show emotions...etc. I can't count the number of stories I've read about these goshdarn superheroes who seem to know the answer to everything and have as much emotional depth as a rock in mating season. yeehaw?

hehe, I couldn't tell you who those characters are that you listed though -_- never read any of those stories! :oops:

My 65.78 cents.

hugz!@

Dio

[aj]

What makes a character great is the ability to change and grow, to learn from mistakes--just like real people. The reader has to be able to see what motivates the character to do what he/she does, and the character has to have energy. While surprising behavior is sometimes good, there has to be an internal logic to their actions and decisions. The struggle to overcome weaknesses and flaws is important, as this makes the character likable to the readers, who identify with the struggle.

To read some of the most amazing characterization around, I suggest reading anything by David Buffet, but in particular Alpha Male or Control and Kaos. The guy is a master.

cheers!

aj

[The Pecman]

What makes a character great is the ability to change and grow, to learn from mistakes--just like real people.

I think AJ has hit closest to the truth here. To me, the thing that makes characters memorable is often their flaws, and how they ultimately overcome them (or not). I didn't realize this until halfway through writing Angel, but I felt it applied to not only what I was writing, but also many other favorite stories I've read in the past.

The other thing I look for in a story is how the characters change from the beginning to the end. I look to see what they've learned from their experience, if they're better or worse, and if maybe they won't make the same mistakes again.

My buddy Keith Morrisette has noted before that a big turn-off for him are characters in gay fiction that are "too perfect," who are always understanding, never temperamental, and never make mistakes. To me, he's 100% right. I think characters with flaws make them more human, provided the flaws are believable and work with the plot.

I also agree with AJ's assessment of David Buffet's work. Many (if not all) of the characters in his stories meet the above guidelines. Buffet also tends to make some of his characters fairly complex in that you think of them one way at the beginning, then they become something very different by the end. The characterizations are part of the reason I enjoy reading his work.

[Tanuki Racoon]

Many of my characters are composites of real people I know. Or in the case of one character, it's almost me. The best way to make a real character is to write what you know.

[The Pecman]

Many of my characters are composites of real people I know. Or in the case of one character, it's almost me.

I don't think it's possible to write any other way. I think any character a writer creates is going to share some traits with his (or her) creator, or at least someone we know closely. It's not unlike an actor having the ability to momentarily bury their personality and become a totally different person on-stage. Only we do it with a pen (or a word processor).

The best way to make a real character is to write what you know.

Yeah, that's an old chestnut, but the reality is, there's always room for us to know more. I knew absolutely zip about karate, prison life, or football when I started writing Angel, but I did weeks of research so that I learned enough about them to the point that I could write about them in a convincing and vivid way. I still can't throw a pass or execute a roundhouse kick, nor have I ever been inside a prison cell (except for a tourist visit to Alcatraz), but the reader will at least believe what happens in the story.

I'm still doing research on my time-travel novel, which continues to be stalled. Part of the reason is that I'm terrified of starting to write before I'm really ready, and trying to capture the verisimilitude of everyday life in 1865 is a daunting task. For example, I don't want somebody to point out -- "hey, dip-shit! There were no such things as shoelaces in 1865, yet you describe somebody tying up their shoes!" Getting the language right is difficult, too. Little things like that will kill ya, every time.

I have a whole bookshelf of mid-1800's reference books -- including several on Sam Clemens -- to help me capture the spirit of that era. The point is, yeah, you have to write what you know... but what you know can have an almost unlimited potential. I know a lot more now than I did ten years ago, that's for sure.

[Trab]

"I have a whole bookshelf of mid-1800's reference books"

I am assuming you mean a bookshelf of reference books on the mid-1800's. Is the setting of the story America, Canada, Europe or elsewhere? If it is anywhere in the northwest USA or Canada, to do with goldrush days etc., you might want to look into the Canadian author Pierre Berton. He has done some stupendous stuff on that era covering mostly the west and the goldrush.

[Tanuki Racoon]

The best way to make a real character is to write what you know.

Yeah, that's an old chestnut, but the reality is, there's always room for us to know more. but what you know can have an almost unlimited potential. I know a lot more now than I did ten years ago, that's for sure.

I didn't say the only way, just the best way.

I know shit about skateboarding culture, but I've been told I did a good job in ADIP. I never lived in London, but I received dozens of emails from Brits asking me where I lived in London, etc, etc. But that's all research, etc.

[The Pecman]

I am assuming you mean a bookshelf of reference books on the mid-1800's. Is the setting of the story America, Canada, Europe or elsewhere?

United States from the fall of 1864 to the spring of 1865, all the way from Missouri to Arizona to Nevada, then cross-country back to Washington, D.C. and then Missouri again, probably by rail.

It turns out that Writers Digest has an entire series of books on Everyday Life in different eras. That's provided many of the answers I was looking for, as far as the 1800s go, but it's still daunting to write about a world that is so foreign to where (and when) we are now. Sam Clemens own books (like the classic Roughing It) fill in some more blanks, as do some others that I've picked up recently.

The key for me is to figure out a way to avoid letting the story become a broken record, endlessly repeating variations of "gee, things are a lot different in 1865 than they were in 2006." That's a tough dramatic hurdle, and I'm not satisfied with the solutions to overcome it yet.

[Tragic Rabbit]

Pec, don't you find that the more you talk about a story, the further it recedes into the distance? I haven't been writing as long as you have but I've found that's true for me. I accidentally killed (or at least temporarily banished to my Unfinished File) a number of what seemed to me promising stories because I chatted about them to the Dude or someone before getting more than a few pages down.

Another time I had more down but during a research phase, talked too much, and ended up setting that story aside for months. That one was finally finished but only because his Dudeness nagged at me! I'm glad he did, Lucky Strike Hit Parade 1941 isn't the worst story I've written, in my opinion. But I did nearly off the poor thing by overtalking it. Several others. Why? I'm not sure, I think maybe I get self conscious and then, esp when someone says 'Wow, sounds Awesome', I'm skeered it'll fall short. Performance anxiety.

Right now, I have about six half finished stories, I'm actually having a terrific problem with Fiction Interruptus. Help! Any advice? It's depressing.

Characters I like. I do like Brian and Pete, those stories were some of the first I read at Nifty back before I decided I, too, could try this thing called Fiction. I'm lousy at remembering names, real or fictional, so I can't be sure about the others but probably read most of those, too. I love Elecivil's characters, like some others, Jamie's winged hunks, Mickey and Davey from TLOT, many others I'm too muddle headed to be able to list here from memory.

Published books, lots of characters stay with me, I fell in love with Anne Rice's Louis long ago and never got over it, plus lots of other fictional vampires (now that I think of it, I loved David McMillian's vampire hero very much), almost any character Anne Tyler writes, all very ordinary folk, most Philip K Dick characters, flat out nuts as so many of them are. Tolkien's characters, pretty much the whole entire cast of thousands, but especially the hobbits, Gandalf and an Elf or two. Merry and Pippin, Sam and Frodo.

Lots of other characters probably no one here has heard of but plenty that I love enough to either reread their books or, if I'm lucky, discover further adventures, though that is sometimes disappointing. What about the guy in Invisible Man? Does he even have a name? Great character. Holden in Catcher in the Rye?

So there are loads of characters I have loved, but why do I love them? I think some of what's been said is right, they have to seem individuals, for one thing. If they blend into a bunch of same types the author tosses out, well, they are forgettable to me. That's one thing that's amazing about Tolkien, that he created so MANY people that you just canNOT forget, not to mention a whole entire and believable world.

Harry Turtledove does that in some of his series' (Southern Victory, for example) where huge casts live through decades but they each seem very much themselves and you like (or hate) them. Speaking of research, Turtledove is a madman, he researches like crazy but since his stuff is 'alternative history', he doesn't get the recognition that someone like Colleen McCullough does. She's awesome, don't get me wrong, and her huge casts are also gripping and realisitic (and real people, too!) but hers are seen as somehow more legitimate because it's fiction based on history that did happen, versus Turtledove who writes fiction based on what might have happened. Both drenched in enough realism to choke horse...or a history major.

I think good or great characters also do need to change somehow, though that is harder to pin down in your own stories than in someone else's and might be something more for later analysis than thoughts you have while writing...or reading.

While reading, you should just feel as if things make sense, as they happen, that events and actions are unfolding in a manner that you can believe--whether that's in a world where the Confederate States won the War of Northern Aggression, in outer space like the Foundation and Empire series (mind numbingly good work, btw) or just a suburban housewife whose tired of her marriage a la Anne Tyler's very ordinary scenarios.

So how to WRITE such a character, a memorable and good one, might be awfully different from recognizing one in someone else's work, esp if that work is well regarded, like Tolkien's.

In my own stories, I do often like most, if not all, of the characters. They all seem real to me, real as Tinkerbell and Peter, real as people who breathe and speak to me in daily life. But I wrote them, wouldn't they seem real to me, even if no one else likes them? Else why would I write them?

Angel de la Torres lives in my head, as does Gene Kuo and other Drama Club characters, no less so Christian and Thomas from Some Enchanted Evening, or Johnny from Lucky Strike Hit Parade. Are they good characters? Hell if I know.

My only clues are when someone says they like a story or, and this seems more tellng, when someone says they CARE what so-and-so does, what happens to them. They cried, or laughed, or loved along with a character that *I* wrote...a stunning feeling and something I still haven't gotten over the thrill of, that I can invent people that not only seem real to ME but who manage to live, at least for a moment, in the heart of a reader.

Good character, what's a good character? Different things make a character good but when a reader cares about a character, is rooting for something to happen, something to go right or wrong, you know that you've touched someone and done something, not sure what, right. Probably James' initial post is on target, too, by asking if you remember them LATER, even if not by name.

I'd have to look up a lot of characters to tell you their names, or authors, but their deeds, their scenes, their LIVES live on in my memory almost as if they'd happened to me, at least for the best storytellers, the better, perhaps, characters. But the characters can't stand alone, you also need a gripping story, believable details/scenery and other stuff to allow the reader a framework in which to appreciate a character.

So, to answer the question, I don't know but the above are some of my thoughts on the matter.

Kisses...

TR

[blue]

Darn, most of the good points have already been said, it seems.

Did someone say Drama Club? Whither wentest thou, Drama Club? But my reading habits have been spotty, at best, of late, so if I missed an update, my apologies, Mr. Director TR.

Texas and Qu?bec, eh, dio? Welcome here / Bienvenu ici.

If the characters change and grow, believably, even if it's a fantasy, that's memorable. If they're individuals, with their own flaws and strengths and quirks, that's memorable. (Cardboard cutouts, please do not apply...unless they're a mannequin in a certain recent story, ;) ) If I care what happens to the characters, or find them interesting even if they are villains, they're memorable. If I find myself, much later, thinking about the characters or what they went through, even if I can't remember their name, that's memorable too. If I get emotionally involved, and want to cheer or boo or what-not, you bet, that's memorable.

Eh, my two cents, more or less.

~Blue / Ben W.

[Tanuki Racoon]

Pec, don't you find that the more you talk about a story, the further it recedes into the distance? I haven't been writing as long as you have but I've found that's true for me. I accidentally killed (or at least temporarily banished to my Unfinished File) a number of what seemed to me promising stories because I chatted about them to the Dude or someone before getting more than a few pages down.

You asked Pec, but I'll answer for myself. Actually the more I talk about it, the more it helps. Sometimes it will help a confusion in my mind or help get me 'unstuck' from writer's block.

[The Pecman]

Pec, don't you find that the more you talk about a story, the further it recedes into the distance? I haven't been writing as long as you have but I've found that's true for me. I accidentally killed (or at least temporarily banished to my Unfinished File) a number of what seemed to me promising stories because I chatted about them to the Dude or someone before getting more than a few pages down.

While part of my reluctance to work on the story can be chalked down to semi-Writers' Block, the reality is that I'm overwhelmed with projects at the moment. Working an average of 72 hours a week at my day job hasn't helped matters.

I agree, though, that over-working or over-thinking out a story can kill it before it's written. That almost happened to me with Jagged Angel, in that I dilligently plotted out the entire thing in advance, then sat down to write it. Unfortunately, I discovered that doing all that preliminary work had taken a lot of the fun -- the joy of discovering -- in the actual writing. That made writing some of it quite tedious. But I was eventually able to overcome it.

In this case, I'm just reading some historical books about Lincoln and Sam Clemens (and Jesse James, all of whom figure in the story), and will file that away as background material. When I'm finally in the mood to jump in, I'm confident that I'll be able to do it.

[Naiilo]

I haven't been able to do much writing this fall, but I have done a lot of reading, most of which is for classes. For my writing class we had to read some writer's periodicals. I snatched up a Writer's Digest, Writer's Market, and The Writer. Now, I don't remember if it was in The Writer or Writer's Digest, but one of those mags had an article on creating memorable characters. One aspect in particular stood out to me. I can't quote it, but if I remember right they said that memorable characters always contain some sort of noticible flaw, or quirk. So say you have a main character that is incredibly clumsy, or particularly from of cheese. Those characters stick out to readers in different audiences. I doubt endowing your characters with quirks/flaws that are more generalized will turn off an entire sector of readership. I don't know... it sounds like a neat idea to experiment with.

-Naiilo

[Tanuki Racoon]

So say you have a main character that is incredibly clumsy, or particularly from of cheese.

What is "from of cheese"?

Or do you mean "fond of cheese" -- that would be Wallace from Wallace and Grommit. I like Grommit better than Wallace. And Grommit doesn't say a word.

[Naiilo]

So say you have a main character that is incredibly clumsy, or particularly from of cheese.

What is "from of cheese"?

Or do you mean "fond of cheese" -- that would be Wallace from Wallace and Grommit. I like Grommit better than Wallace. And Grommit doesn't say a word.

See -- this is a good example of what I was talking about. WBMS is evoking one of his noticeable character quirks: his inability to not correct another in conversation. It fits in well with his grammarian tendancies and language-usage pet peeve. I do appreciate his effort, though, to highlight my characteristic quirk, which is an inability to actually type the right word in a forum post, and also for the opportunity to create an example for my original idea. We are memorable characters on this forum thanks to our characteristic quirks/flaws, at least for now.

Double-Plus Good: Yes, Grommit is a better character than Wallace in my opinion too.

-Naiilo

[Tragic Rabbit]

We are memorable characters on this forum thanks to our characteristic quirks/flaws

And TR is ever so grateful. [see: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forums, parts one and two, for more on this idea.]

Kisses...

TR :hiding:

[JamesSavik]

A few more things that make a character stand out:

Quirks- Bob smokes ciggerettes. Whenever he gets a new pack, he takes the first one out of the pack and turns backward and puts it back in and saves it. When he has a paricular need for luck, he smokes the lucky smoke.

Consistency- a character needs to be consistent in his words and actions unless there is a good reason for him not to be consistent.

Consistency in dialogue:

Bob is a crackhead and is fond of saying, "Get your filthy paws off my rock, ho."

You wouldn't expect him to say, "You can tell that this rock is bogus because the gram-molecular weight is off."

Consistency in Actions:

Bob, still a crackhead, steals car radios and little old ladies welfare checks.

You wouldn't expect him to tutor kids taking high school geometry.

Now- if Bob was a scientest before he got on the rock, then there may be a good reason for his bizaar contradictions in his behavior.

[Trab]

"You wouldn't expect him to say, "You can tell that this rock is bogus because the gram-molecular weight is off." "

You might, because the next sentence is, "I worked in a hock shop for years bro, and this rock is bogus."

[Tanuki Racoon]

"You wouldn't expect him to say, "You can tell that this rock is bogus because the gram-molecular weight is off." "

You might, because the next sentence is, "I worked in a hock shop for years bro, and this rock is bogus."

Yes, but Bob's been playing with his rocks.... ::drum roll::

but to keep on topic, the original point is valid. If you're going out of character you need to have either a good, plausible explanation or you need for your character to stay IN character.

I think the reason my stories are so good is the characters. I don't think the story itself is anything special one way or the other. Or, let's pick on Jo Rowling. Her characters are awesome, but the story, boiled down, is another fantasy novel that you've read many times over by many authors. (I am not criticizing, but pointing out that without a good character most stories become terribly weak.)

[Graeme]

I'm just bumping a few threads to bring them back....