Character Comparison

[Guest Dabeagle]

I recently exchanged emails with another online writer about his stories. When I do, I frequently include questions or constructive criticism - frequently both. One of my comments to this writer was that their characters seemed so self aware and he replied that he was self aware himself as a child, and such was his experience. This got me to thinking about the old adage about what we reveal in our stories and characters about ourselves.

As I ruminated I decided that our different backgrounds would cause characters to flesh out in completely different ways even if we were given the same scene to work with. For instance, let's say that the scene is a boy is playing in the mud of a creek that runs alongside his home. As he builds with the mud and destroys his creations he begins to think how much easier it would be to mold the mud if he had something like a pie pan, of which his mother has in the kitchen.

I'm going to take an educated guess and say this other writers character would think this through; that he would have to clean his feet off first if he were barefoot to avoid soiling the floor, or leaving his shoes at the door for the same. Perhaps he might even think far enough ahead to decide that taking one of mom's pie plates was a bad idea and work on a new one.

Now, my character, I have no doubt would get the idea of the pie plate and dash inside, grab the plate from the counter and see his muddy prints and either not pay it any attention or shrug and figure he could blame the dog - or not notice his muddy prints at all till the question came up.

Me, being eternally unaware (but really pleased with myself when I have a flash of insight) makes for slightly clueless characters. How about you other writers? How does that affect your characters? Any advice to new folks about avoiding rewriting yourself over and over?

[Merkin]

I think when we're young we start out writing subjectively--that is, we tend to write about the world we've experienced, and we narrate from our own point-of-view, no matter who or what we call our characters. I think one mark of a dedicated writer is the ability to put oneself in another person's shoes, and perceive the world by means of that other personality. That's an ability that comes with practice and through trial-and-error. But it is an essential skill to develop in order to avoid, as you say, rewriting yourself over and over.

Merkin

[Guest Dabeagle]

I should probably note that isn't what the person was doing, I was just posing a hypothetical.

[Cole Parker]

Great, great topic!

I put myself, to a degree, in all my protagonists. I'd be surprised if each of you didn't do the same thing. But, I also feel the need to individualize the protagonists story to story. They can't all be the same person. So I intentionally give each of them a characteristic or two that isn't me.

I wouldn't feel the need to do this if I'd only written a few stories, but as the number grows, the need to define each one as an individual also grows and is something I'm well aware of.

I don't know how others do this, but I do notice that some writers have very different protagonists, and some have the same one recycled over and over. And you know what's surprising? Both ways seem to work.

I myself would actively try to secure that pie plate in different ways with different protagonists. The bolder ones would simply take it and figure out that they could excuse themselves successfully later, no matter what the recriminations were. The more timid ones would fret about it and worry and some wouldn't take it at all, and some would find a way to take it so it wouldn't be noticed.

I do one thing with all my protagonists. I give them a healthy dose of smarts. It would be difficult of rme to write a dumb protagonist. I've tried it, and abandoned every one of those novels. I've read enought stories with stupid main characters to know it can be done, but it's not for me. I like my protagonists to ruminate a bit on their situations. A dumb guy wouldn't do that.

So, I guess the answer to this has more to do with the character's personality than anything esle, and that depends on what you're comfortable writing. I try hard to make mine different, but they certainly do share some traits. And I'd guess maybe we can all say that. As I think of the writers we have here and what they've written, I think that's true.

[Richard Norway]

I'm a bit new to writing, but it's become a passion with me. My first attempts were very personal in that the characters that I was portraying were an extension of myself, my ideals, my ways of doing things. I became my characters, or better worded, they became me. It was comfortable and I enjoyed getting my way of thinking out there.

But as I continued, I realized that not everyone was like me and characters that I was portraying had their own particular history and would react and do things differently then me. I have 3 novels started with characters that are not me. That is difficult. I find that I didn't understand them or why I'm making them do the things that they do. I seemed to be blocked as to how to finish their stories in the way that the characters will seem real because they're not me.

I'm not as accomplished (yet) as you are Dave, but I fully understand the problem that writers go through in making their characters believable. So how do we write a character's actions that are completely different from the actions that we would take? My question is that if we don't understand why that character is acting in a certain way that is different than the way we understand, will our readers feel that it is believable?

Probably not.

For me I've realized that research into their motives is paramount. What makes them tick. If I don't know, then I can make it up. (writers prerogative) I guess my point is that if you want to write about someone that is foreign to you, you first have to study what drives them.

[blue]

I'm going to do a really dangerous thing and step in before reading other comments. I skimmed a little, that's all.

How do you write a character who is fundamentally different than you? Can you? How do you write an alien character? How do you write an animal character, like a dog, cat, horse, bird...mouse, cockroach, flea...? How do you write a tree or a rock or a stream or the wind? How do you write God? Can you?

See, it seems hard enough when you're writing a character who fundamentally isn't you. An evil mastermind. A famous real life figure. A caveman. A man from ten thousand years in the future who may not be quite human. Or how about a woman? A little kid? Or someone with a subtly different mindset and culture? Your first crush, whether it worked out or not? Yourself as a younger person, even?

Those all sound hard to write, because they are people we know are very different, and yet, they are somehow like us, a little bit the same.

But when you get into writing a sentient computer, or an Earth animal, plant, etc., or something inanimate, or...God...? How the heck do you write them, as characters?

You have to make it up. You're the storyteller. You're playing a game of pretend, and you're telling everyone around you what's going on in the game of pretend. You get to personify things, beings, even ideas.

So in one sense, it's easy, you make something up that fits the story you're telling, the character that person or thing or idea is.

In another sense, you are writing someone or something very different, but you understand that character because you know what is the same, similar, in yourself, and what is fundamentally not the same, very different.

If I write a character who's an ordinary person, I may draw on parts of my everyday self, or I may use parts of people I've known or seen or heard. It might be a childhood friend, a relative, or someone you know personaly, or a public or historical figure.

If I write a hero, a protagonist, that character needs to be the better parts of me, the person I'd like to be, or people whom I admire. But that hero is not going to be perfect, or no one will believe his character. If he's always right, perfect, and it all comes easy because he's so good at everything. Yeah, not falling for it. He has to be just heroic enough to be believable.

If I write a villain, an antagonist, an anti-hero, that character is going to be the parts of me that I'm not proud of. My faults, mistakes, the little petty or uncivilized parts I wish weren't there. Only...we all have that dark side, don't we? And strangely, the villain thinks he's right too. Or thinks he can get away with it; he thinks he's justified. The villain may be the worse parts of people we've known or read about. Or we might make something up to fit the story problem/conflict.

And that's our problem. We are writing about things where we can't be in the heads or shoes of each of those characters, yet we have to understand something about what they'd be like, and we have to know what part they play in the story we're telling. What type of person would do that, say that, feel that? What do the other characters need? What does the story need?

Oh, I certainly don't have all the answers. I'm primarily an editor, so far at least. But when I'm editing or when I'm reading/watching/listening to a story, I try to think of why that's written that way. Yet, yes, in story ideas I've had, it can be really perplexing. Here I'm going along fine, and then A and B are in a jam, and what does B do? What does A do? Why? What does C do when C comes along? How do I write that, if I don't really know about them? I mean, I can't very well walk up to a random boy, man, girl, woman, creature, alien being, cybernetic lifeform, force of nature, or deity and say, "Hey, dude (dudette) how's it goin'? Say, put down that whatchamacallit a minute and tell me, how do you feel about so and so? What would you do if such and such? Really hard to do, if it's a big tyrannosaur, say. Or the supreme being. Or y'know, whoever, whatever. Also kinda hard to do with real life people, even if you're working from memory. After all, you're not the same person you were ten or twenty years ago, for instance.

Research helps a lot to get your facts right. Heck, even things I think I know, I may get to writing and realize I'm not sure exactly how that goes. How exactly do I describe that one again? Writing about someone, somewhere, some-when else, not easy without research. (And last I checked, I can't pop over to Lamdba Leonis VI, assuming there is a Lambda Leonis VI and that I could live there, spacesuit or not.)

So somewhere in there, you're pretending and telling people about it.

Sorry, best advice I've got.

And yeah, I've been trying voice parts lately, and getting any idea of a character and what he's supposed to sound like from three lines of dialogue, sometimes without other characters' lines to act off of? I've discovered it's much the same as trying to write a character and get that character right, only there, I'm supposed to guess what another author had in his/her head and bring that character to life in my voice. Yikes!

But the same advice holds: There, I've got to make believe and act out the part. Kinda different if it's a bear or cougar or sheep (like one of Codey's stories) or an alien or some character I have no experience of in real life. But also a fun challenge. ... Uh, but I'd really need a dialect coach if I ever want to try a Boston accent again, haha. (I'm usually good with accents, but some, I don't know enough of the details. I tried to sound like the Kennedys. Didn't quite get there.) However, apparently, I make a pretty good psychotic Cardassian officer, for instance. Hey, don't judge me, man. Hate on the haters....

Your mileage may vary. I think this is actually one of the toughest topics. We're supposed to know something about it, but ultimately, all we can do is draw on what we know of other humans and the world around us.

Hum a few bars and wing it, man. That's entertainment.

[EleCivil]

When writing a character, I think of two main "Operating Conditions" - a Primary Driving Force and a Typical Emotional Response.

The Primary Driving Force (PDF) would be what that character wants above all else. It could be "To fall in love," "To get rich," "To help others," or just "To be left alone for a while." This instantly gives me a reason for that character to be doing whatever it is that they're doing. If their actions are contradictory to their PDF, they need to be explained. If a character is consistently acting against his/her PDF, I know that I either need to re-think that character, or that the character needs to go through some kind of transformative event. A character's PDF can change completely from one scene to another, of course, just as our own short-term goals are constantly shifting. Your PDF at school might be "Just stay awake and keep out of trouble," while after school it may be "Find some adventure."

The Typical Emotional Response (TER) gives me a basic guideline as to that character's most automatic way of reacting to things. I think we've all got one particular response that is so ingrained in our personalities that it is near-reflexive. When faced with a new or challenging situation, do we experience fear, curiosity, excitement, anger, etc? (We are capable of reacting differently, of course, but it takes conscious effort.) This, I think, is what really helps us stretch into writing characters that are unlike us. I think that most of us, at one point or another, have felt nearly every emotion we can name (I could get into whether or not we are feeling more that we do not have names for, and thus cannot percieve, but let's save that for another thread), and therefore have a baseline for writing characters whose typical reactions are different from our own.

So, to take the opening example of playing in the mud, we've got two kids.

The Other Author's Character would be operating with the Primary Driving Force of "Stay out of trouble," with the Typical Emotional Response of "Hesitate before acting, think through consequences."

Beagle's Character would be operating with the Primary Driving Force of "Build an awesome mud thing!", with the Typical Emotional Response of "Impulsively pursue goals without giving much thought to consequences."

And, of course, if one of them is acting atypically, you could still use this scene to show their typical responses by having another character make a comment like "That's not like you - you usually think things through before doing something like this," or "What, NOW you're worried about getting in trouble? Where was that yesterday, when we were shaving the cat?"

Neither of these characters is unrealistic, and we've all felt both impulsivity AND hesitation, so we're able to understand the thoughts and feelings associated with each one. The hardest part is remembering to write in such a way that all of your characters do not have the same Typical Emotional Response as you, the author. Taking the time to identify the Operating Conditions of the characters helps you avoid that.

[Cole Parker]

That's very good, E/C. I've never actually thought it out that way, but realize I do do that in creating characters.

I put it another way in my head. I tell myself I'm figuring out each character's psychologyy, and I do define that basically by asking myself what kind of a person is he. Assertive? Timid? Risk-taking? Adventuresome? Reclusive? Introspective? Energetic? Depressed? Competitive? Etc.

I make those decision and separate the characters be giving them personalities that are derived from their individual psychology and that will allow them to mesh or be at loggerheads.

The trick then is to show these personalities to the readers through the way they react to what's happening, instead of telling the reader what each personality is. But that's the fun of it, too, creating situations so the individual personalities shine through.

I don't think you have to do a lot of research, Richard. You already know a lot about psychology, and how different personalities work, simply by living to a grand old age. You just have to decide on what personality traits to give to various characters, and then have them be faithful to the psychology behind it.

C

[Guest Dabeagle]

To Richards post - I think most of my main characters have some of me in them, and that's not a problem. While some people may be very black and white I think most others are mixes of gray, and I think that because I am like that myself. I think. As I said, I'm not always all that self aware, and as a result my characters tend to follow that.

EleCivil seems to have found that tool anyone can use when they get stuck and wonder what to do next; that's an awfully powerful tool to put in your belt. Don't say it Lug.

[colinian]

I like EleCivil's tools, and use them with implied permission and under the terms of the GNU General Public License.

Thanks, EleCivil! Great way of thinking about characters, especially characters unlike the writer, in my case, me.

Colin

[blue]

Another point that I've come to realize I need to work on: C.J. Cherryh, an author whose work I really like, made some comments (I wish I had a link/copy to cite) about writing characters and stories.

She said she thinks stories are primarily character-driven, instead of plot-driven. You as the audience relate to the story, the story is shaped, by the characters, how they feel, think, and how they act. A leads to B leads to C or D or E.

But then here's what really was valuable about what she wrote: She said when you write, you need to remember each character is the hero of his/her own story. Each person thinks he or she is the central character, and has his/her own feelings and ideas about where things are going. For example, the villain thinks he's right, and the villain isn't all bad, any more than the hero is all good. So while A is doing A things, B is over here doing B things, which may be in concert with A, or may be at odds with A. Meanwhile, C is over there doing something completely different that may affect A and B later...or sooner. So each character is doing something to add excitement and richness to the story. Now, granted, not every character is a major character. Somebody has to be the extra or the supporting character.

It explained one big reason why I like her writing. There's always something going on with every character. The sidekicks and the villains are strong characters and so is the hero. There may be many heroes or villains. They all do something.

This was something she expanded on after the more usual advice of the writing exercise of writing the same scene through each character's eyes.

I wish I was even ten percent as good at it. That advice was really something.

[Camy]

That advice was really something.

Recently, I started reading 'how to write' books and columns written by some quite notable and successful authors: consequently, I haven't written a thing since. I'm not saying that advice isn't helpful, but it can be daunting and it can discourage. As there are a gazzilion different ways to be a writer, so one bit of advice might be great for others and suck for you. Just sayin' ;)

[Guest Dabeagle]

I agree, but on the other hand if someone is, say, stuck EleCivil's advice could come in quite handy. Like most advice, use what you can and store the rest - in case you can use it later.

[Merkin]

Novels, I think, are more apt to be character-driven than short stories, because the range of a novel permits a writer to establish a much fuller characterization with much more of a back story to draw upon as events proceed. A short story, almost by definition, must rush toward its resolution by means of its plot, relying upon conflict, action, and climax, and often leaving the luxury of a full characterization behind. Characterization, while not forsaken, is more apt to rely on broader brush strokes to fill in the outlines of personality and motivation than is the case in a novel.

[Camy]

Like most advice, use what you can and store the rest - in case you can use it later.

Absolutely!

[The Pecman]

When writing a character, I think of two main "Operating Conditions" - a Primary Driving Force and a Typical Emotional Response.

I think it's even simpler than that. A basic story usually boils down to: what do the characters want? How they get there, and what they do if they get (or can't get, or ultimately regret) what they want, is essentially the story.

I think as time has gone on, there's been less of me in my characters, simply because I've made an effort to try to write about people who are nothing at all like me. But even Stephen King has confessed that every character he creates -- including the psychotic villains and demons -- have splinters of his own character in there somewhere. To me, that's just the human experience: we write what we know, embellish it, and come up with somebody who surprises us by doing something we don't expect.

Self-awareness is only one small aspect of a character. To me, one key trick is having the character have the ability to make a mistake and not realize it until later on. You and I might see this coming a mile away, but if the reader can believe the character isn't aware enough to catch the mistake, then all kinds of plots can result from that conflict. And there's always the kind of character who just takes things a day at a time, doesn't worry about tomorrow, and is just concerned with what's going on at the moment. In a lot of cases, I think extreme self-awareness leads to self-obsession, to the point where the character thinks it's all about him (or her). What's more challenging to me is to show their concern about other people, empathy for tragic situations outside their control, how they're affected by other people's misfortunes, and so on. Or maybe they start off being self-absorbed and then change over time and eventually become less selfish people. I've always tried to write stories where the characters start out as one way at the beginning, and by the end of the book, they're clearly changed (physically and/or mentally) by the events of the story.

In addition to having characters want something, I also try to put a fork in the road at some point, where one or more of the characters has to make a pivotal decision: do they stay in town or do they leave? Do they go out with somebody or not? Do they end a relationship, or try to make it work? Do they stand and fight, or do they run? Better writers than me have said, "there should be some major dramatic cliffhanger that happens about halfway into the novel," and I can think of many, many classic works where this is exactly what happens. The first half of the story brings us up to that point; the second half deals with the aftermath and/or repercussions, hopefully leading to a climax.

[Cole Parker]

Novels, I think, are more apt to be character-driven than short stories, because the range of a novel permits a writer to establish a much fuller characterization with much more of a back story to draw upon as events proceed. A short story, almost by definition, must rush toward its resolution by means of its plot, relying upon conflict, action, and climax, and often leaving the luxury of a full characterization behind. Characterization, while not forsaken, is more apt to rely on broader brush strokes to fill in the outlines of personality and motivation than is the case in a novel.

This is so very true. And, the opposite is very true, also. There really aren't any rules in writing. Any you can make up and say, this has to be done, someone will come along and obliterate it with a fine, compelling story.

What seems to work most often is to write with passion, and believe in your story and your characters. Beyond, you do what feels right to you.

C

[The Pecman]

Also very true, Cole. What does bug me is when I read a story that doesn't really seem to be about anything... it just kind of plods along, characters come and go, people talk, but there's not a lot of point to it.

I think you have to have a core idea at the heart of the novel (or even a short story), just to get the characters from point A to point B and get somewhere. Otherwise it turns into "Days of Our Lives." Even something as simple as "A weak character finds hidden strength helping a close friend, under impossible odds." I think if you can't describe a story's theme in a couple of sentences, it's gonna wonder around a bit.

[Chris James]

I love a good story that is character driven. Characters often have more facets than the plot, and that seems to work. A story can take twists and turns galore all the way to the end, but if the characters aren't up to the task of guiding the readers there then we have a disaster.

All the great plans for a story plot often dissolve when a character asserts itself in the mind of the author. A developing empathy for a character means he/she will get more play, more lines, and I think that bond is important. We often start out with one or two central players only to discover that the focus in a chapter shifts to someone else because of an event in the plot. But chapters end and fade to black...then it is decision time.

There is nothing lost if an author goes back and makes changes in previous chapters because of some new idea, I do it all the time. This is why I will never again post as I write. Some developments don't reveal themselves until later in a plot and if an author can't take advantage of them...I think this is why many posted stories are never finished.

The wonderful thing about AD is that the stories all seem to be spread out over an entire spectrum of thought. The variety alone creates a good diet of words for the readers. I see fewer problems in stories here than I do elsewhere and that speaks to good writing and editing habits. The rules be damned if an author has something to say and knows how to present it in a cohesive manner.

[Merkin]

I think most all writers agree that there shouldn't be any hard and fast rules governing the writing--or if there are, it is incumbent upon a creative writer to find ways to break them in order to develop and grow.

But there are the expectations of readers, and reasons why a reader is willing to begin a story and decide to stay with it to the end. This is where I think discussions like this have benefited me the most.

[Cole Parker]

Also very true, Cole. What does bug me is when I read a story that doesn't really seem to be about anything... it just kind of plods along, characters come and go, people talk, but there's not a lot of point to it.

I think you have to have a core idea at the heart of the novel (or even a short story), just to get the characters from point A to point B and get somewhere. Otherwise it turns into "Days of Our Lives." Even something as simple as "A weak character finds hidden strength helping a close friend, under impossible odds." I think if you can't describe a story's theme in a couple of sentences, it's gonna wonder around a bit.

Very true. If a story doesn't have forward motion, if it isn't going anywhere, I get to feeling very restless, and will eventually put it down.

C

[Guest Dabeagle]

I think most all writers agree that there shouldn't be any hard and fast rules governing the writing--or if there are, it is incumbent upon a creative writer to find ways to break them in order to develop and grow.

But there are the expectations of readers, and reasons why a reader is willing to begin a story and decide to stay with it to the end. This is where I think discussions like this have benefited me the most.

I have often wondered on the writers responsibility to the reader. In the end all there really is to work with is a silent understanding that one will write and one will read, and perhaps neither has any right to expect more. However some stories start slow, I'll case in point my own BBK, and it was a thorn. You have to slog through a bit to get to the 'good parts' which are the dialogue. Now, I think that the setup was important and came into play, creating balance, by the end but I have to agree with my beta reader who suggested cutting something like the first three pages, initially. I should have gone back and redone it because, as Cole noted, folks may get restless and walk away.

[Cole Parker]

These are the sort of problems we all worry about all the time. The current story I'm doing goes on a bit before there's any dialog at all, and I don't like writing that way. But it's done for effect. So I worry about it, but do it on purpose. I think we should be aware when we're breaking rules. Aware, but do it if it feels right. Ultimately, we have to let the readers decide if it's any good or not.

[Gee Whillickers]

Also very true, Cole. What does bug me is when I read a story that doesn't really seem to be about anything... it just kind of plods along, characters come and go, people talk, but there's not a lot of point to it.

I too have little patience for stories like this. Even worse are the ones that start out with an apparent direction, seem like they're going somewhere, then fade into a long on-going soap opera of dozens of chapters with no end in sight. Disappointing and frustrating.

We often start out with one or two central players only to discover that the focus in a chapter shifts to someone else because of an event in the plot. But chapters end and fade to black...then it is decision time.

There is nothing lost if an author goes back and makes changes in previous chapters because of some new idea, I do it all the time. This is why I will never again post as I write. Some developments don't reveal themselves until later in a plot and if an author can't take advantage of them...I think this is why many posted stories are never finished.

I can't tell you how often this has happened to me. And, like you, it's one of the main reason I don't post chapters until I'm completely done the story. I just end up going back to change things, and this isn't really possible if you have readers who have already read a previous chapter.

I find I have two types of stories when I'm writing. The first type is where I already know exactly how it's going to end, where it's going, and I firmly adhere to this, aside from a few minor side expeditions. The second kind is where the characters lead me to unknown territory, and I sit down to write almost like I'm sitting down to read: wondering where the story is going to take me today. I can't quite figure out how this works, to be honest. How in the world can I possibly be the one writing if I don't know what I'm going to write? But, somehow, it seems to happen from time to time. Very odd.

These are the sort of problems we all worry about all the time. The current story I'm doing goes on a bit before there's any dialog at all, and I don't like writing that way. But it's done for effect. So I worry about it, but do it on purpose. I think we should be aware when we're breaking rules. Aware, but do it if it feels right. Ultimately, we have to let the readers decide if it's any good or not.

Worrying about all these issues is what, I think, sets apart quality stories from some of the drivel we see out there on the 'net. They're like our children, these stories of ours. We worry, and fuss, and wonder where they're going, and eventually bravely, and nervously, set them loose on the world to do their thing.

[Camy]

The second kind is where the characters lead me to unknown territory, and I sit down to write almost like I'm sitting down to read: wondering where the story is going to take me today. I can't quite figure out how this works, to be honest. How in the world can I possibly be the one writing if I don't know what I'm going to write? But, somehow, it seems to happen from time to time. Very odd.

It's writing by the seat of your pants. You're either a pantser or a plotter, and you seem to be able to do both. Lucky you!