What makes a good character?

[Gary Compton]

I was just looking at some debut authors Amaon feedback and one, who for the purposes of this thread should remain nameless. Had alot of criticism of his characters. 'They were shallow and lacked depth.' etc etc...

What makes a good character and should all the characters in a book be wind swept and interesting?

Do you think an author should develop every person that his protaganist comes into contact with?

I look forward to you're comments

 

[chopper]

Do you think an author should develop every person that his protaganist comes into contact with?

you don't need a backstory for everybody, but my belief is that all characters with a speaking role need to at least fit into the world and be believeable. if Elgarak and Thasselbar come across a shopkeeper called Tim who speaks with an extremely modern vernacular where the rest of the world thee's and thou's, the reader's suspension of disbelief is immediately broken.

 

[John Jarrold]

You will always have the main characters, then second- and third-level characters, dependent upon their importance to and place in the plot. Filling in the entire backstory of every single character is going to stop the story dead in its tracks. Destroying pace is a Bad Thing. But you can sometimes use a turn of phrase or one specific thing to make a minor character real.

 

[j d worthington]

Moved to Aspiring Writers, where it seems more appropriate (as well as more helpful)....

 

[ctg]

It depends on how many main characters you want. Five is ultimate number, when three are perfect. Four is a compromise. Going over and you can lose yourself on having too many - main - characters. First you should decide what characters you want to play in your settings. They should be all connected. Then you have characters with a relationships to your characters. Those are called side-characters. Then comes the impact characters or the random factors.

Via these relationships and impacts you twist and poke your main characters to show more. Giving depth to the story itself. What John says above is very true. With a little twists you make your characters more alive. I would like to add on his thoughts that by choosing right characters for your story, you cannot go wrong. Choosing wrong ones and you will end with an nightmare. Maybe that's the reason why some many vampires stories are so romantic.

 

[dreir]

Although you don't really have to make everyone in your story dazzlingly interesting (it's probably impossible even if you want to), none of them should ever be one-dimensional. No matter how minor their roles, they are still thinking, feeling individuals, and whatever they've gone through in their lives must have left some kind of mark on them, making them feel strongly on certain things and turning them into 'emotionally imperfect' creatures.

Motivation and personal conflict are two things that no character should be without. From my personal observations, in most cases where characters are accused of being 'shallow', the accusation would stem from one of the following reasons:

1. The character does something to help the plot along but doesn't really demonstrate why he's taking all the trouble.
2. The character is simply too 'good', too 'evil' or otherwise too one-sided and nothing would ever make him slip into the grey area between the two extremes.

In the first case, the character's lack of motivation behind his actions will make him lose his significance as well as make the story appear contrived. In the second, things will become so predictable and unrealistic that readers will quickly lose interest in the story altogether. Personal conflict allows for unexpected but logical twists that will make the character appear three-dimensional and keep the story interesting to the readers. At the end of the day, you want the reader to go 'yeah, i understand why he'd do that', and 'yeah, I might actually do that, too, if I was in the same situation'.

For minor characters, it's not even necessary to explain the exact nature of their personal conflicts to the reader. The important thing is to show the characters talking and acting in keeping with them. For example, a supporting character might come along at one point to help your main protagonists for a short while, and although he is genuinely helpful, he might also be sarcastic or cynical during campfire conversations. Or a very minor villain might waylay your party of main characters during a trek through a forest. He is killed in the process but not before showing his wistfulness for a normal life, or maybe a dry sense of humour that makes him slightly endearing. These little touches are enough to give them a sense of depth that readers rightfully demand.

- Dreir -

 

[Malloriel]

I feel it entirely depends on what sort of story you're telling. If you've got a short series, say a trilogy, or even a one-off, then absolutely not. As Dreir (whom I adore, btw ^_^) says above, just make sure they're believable. Don't stick in a character to do what you need doing and toss them aside. They're people too, and should be allowed to show both you and the readers that very fact.

I feel, though, that if you're doing an intricate world wherein many stories may grow, then fleshing out side characters becomes very important. Just now, as I listen to Davy Jones from the Pirates of the Caribbean 2 soundtrack, I thought through several scenes in Seleana's Song. One of them includes and encounter with a half Orc who hits on her. It's a short and very amusing scene before a big battle. The problem here, is I don't have orcs in my world, nor do I wish to. Seleana's Song is built from a D&D game I participated in maybe three years ago (as Sel). I've enjoyed the task of translating much of the D&D-verse into Eleasian terms. I don't just take it stock and change the name. I take the essence, what the characters need in order to be who they were in the game, and build around that framework. For instance, a Paladin plays a huge part, and the player did an excellent job of playing him while keeping to the personality of a strictly Lawful-Good character. I was impressed, aaaand found he wasn't my favourite, as he did lack the freedom of personality. However, those defined him. His dedication to his religion, and strict adherence to what he saw was right. From there I can create any religion I want with any rules I want that support the personality he displayed.

Now, in the case of the half-Orc; he appears just that once, and is more like a little bit of spice in the world, but I can't leave it as just that. If it was a short series in a world I never expected to explore again I think I'd feel differently. As it is, though, knowing I need something to fill that void where the half-Orc would stand, I'd rather go in and build an entire race and their society, a true back story for him as well. Why he's there, why he hits on her, etc. I may never use it, but I know it, and knowing the race exists, how they use magic, how they view others and interact with them, it means that as I go along, I can use them later. I can say "This adds up," and bring them in again in a more supportive capacity than flirting with a main character.

Hell, I could eventually drag every race in Eleasia into the battle to come. Why not? That gives me more to do with the core story arch, which felt a little flat with just the Scions (who may each have a trilogy). Felt like a bit of a fart at the end of a banquette. So right here, you watched me find a role, develope a race based on a need for one character, and add to a major story arch with the inclusion of this new race in the End Game battle.

Not every character needs a backstory, nor does it need so much attention that they rival the main character when all they're meant to do is get you from one plot point to another. In a world you plan on using repeatedly, however, I'd say definitely go for it. You NEVER know what you'll learn or what will lend itself to a hole you may have elsewhere.

 

[maya248]

I think these are what makes a good character

-someone the reader can somehow relate to
-a character that is different from the rest

If all the characters in a book were witty and mindswept and interesting, the book would be a total headache with everyone making witty comments and lots twists and turns. (Btw, too many twists and turns make it really hard to follow what's going on so try to avoid that)

 

[dreir]

If all the characters in a book were witty and (w?)indswept and interesting, the book would be a total headache with everyone making witty comments..

Eddings, anyone? (Don't get me wrong - I'm an Eddings fan, too, but that doesn't stop me from admitting to his faults)

..As Dreir (whom I adore, btw ^_^) says above..

Aww.. Btw, you do know that the feeling is mutual, right?

You NEVER know what you'll learn or what will lend itself to a hole you may have elsewhere.

Very true. In fact, your very knowledge of your characters' backstories (and indeed any other facets of their universe) will allow you to write naturally richer prose since many of your sentences would then carry implications of a bigger, deeper and therefore more realistic world.

- Dreir -

 

[dustinzgirl]

I like conflicted, tortured, complicated, confused, challenged, and defective heroes.

Tanis Half-Elven, for example, has long been my favorite hero.

 

[Malloriel]

I had suspicions, my dear Drier. ^_^

And I agree with your last statement. When you know the back story of a character or set of characters already, then your mind is free to work on putting the prose together in a more polished state, and you'll naturally begin weaving in bits and pieces that may come into play later, or may simply add spice to the piece. Either way, you're not trying to figure out what should be in a flashback the moment you write it, you're sifting through the past to find the most appropriate information to include in the flashback from what you already know.

 

[flynx]

Flashbacks to fill in story? eew no, I hate those. Why couldn't you tell me as we went along or before I got into this complicated mess. Too contrived for my liking. Which is not to say that parallel stories describing relationships and situations aren't useful. They are. Christopher Brookmyre's 'Be My Enemy' (I think) being a great example. But filling in? Don't do it. I beg you.

Someone famous (I forget who) said, with regard to descriptions, if you're going to mention anything at all in a story make sure it's useful.

I'd apply the same to characters but the opposite way round: If you're going to use a character make sure they're described. I don't mean just physically (in fact I'd say that's hardly important at all) but give them reasons and motives for being there at all.

 

[Peter Graham]

Hi Gary,

An excellent thread, if I may say so.

I was just looking at some debut authors Amaon feedback and one, who for the purposes of this thread should remain nameless. Had alot of criticism of his characters. 'They were shallow and lacked depth.' etc etc...

In the interests of healthy debate, I'm going to stick my head above the parapet and say that in much classic genre fiction (especially fantasy), characterisation is not nearly as important as in other areas of fiction. Now, I know that fantasy has moved on and I understand that it now has a darker edge, but fantasy is a lot more about world building and epic plots than it is about character and individual experience. Look at LOTR - I bow to no man (or hobbit) in my admiration of that book, but it isn't a character-led book by any standards. The only genuinely interesting character is Gollum - everyone else is fairly flat and tends to Do Their Duty first and foremost.

We see the same thing in the majority of the fantasy excerpts posted for critique in this very forum. This is no criticism of the quality of the writing, I hasten to add, but I do think that relatively flat characterisation is the inevitable consequence of the huge issues that most fantasy deals with - it's always (or often) quests, big battles, good vs evil and heavy jelly end-of-the-world stuff. There isn't much scope for genuine character evolution within that. Moorcock had a go with Elric, in all fairness, but that appears to be the exception rather than the rule.

Now I know that many people will take umbrage at this and will point out strong fantasy characters. But do any of them really compare with the sort of characters produced by the likes of Dickens or Hardy?

None of this is to say that fantasy is somehow lacking. My favourite writer is Henry Fielding and he is equally guilty of preferring the bigger picture to individual character development. But, like Tolkien, he is so much in command of his subject and his story that it really doesn't matter.

What makes a good character and should all the characters in a book be wind swept and interesting?

I'm with Dreir. It's all about personal conflict and I'd say that needs to go deeper than "duty versus inherent fear/self doubt", which is the common fantasy veneer.

I'm not sure that I entirely agree with CTG's suggestion that there should be a fixed number of main characters. There's no magic to the number, but there is magic in the execution. But it's probably fair to say that if you want to take time to really get into the heads of your protagonists, you are likely to end up with a very small number of lead characters. The reader needs to sympathise with the hero or heroine and doesn't want their sympathies stretched too thin.

Do you think an author should develop every person that his protaganist comes into contact with?

Certainly not! Most of them are just there to move the story along. Let them say their lines and then go home. Or to their early grave, as is more likely in a fantasy or SF novel!

Regards

Peter

 

[ctg]

I would like to clarify what I meant. From my experience I have grown to believe, that no more then five protagonist is what a storyteller wants to deal with during the course of one book. This is because the web that one weaves becomes so complex that it takes a master to get through the entanglements. Of course one could do Tolstoy's and involve fifty protagonist in the plot, but is wise to do so? No, I don't think so. The reason is that not only it's a very difficult task to write, it might be very difficult for the reader to comprehend.

 

[WafflesToo]

A'la Robert Jordan. I loved the first three books of the 'Wheel of Time' series, but much after that there was so much going on besides Rand, Mat, and Perrin that it got confusing to follow, tiring to read, and eventually lost my interest altogether (the story had a lot of other problems too, but it was overpopulation that killed my interest in it).

Real shame too...

 

[Peedee]

Neil Gaiman had a wonderful quote on the matter, which to paraphrase, went that good or bad, "the character should be someone you would like to talk to at a party."

And I like the idea. Not that they're necessarily party people, your characters, but they should be interesting. You shoudl want to spend time with 'em, the good guys and the bad guys.

You can stretch it, too. Maybe a bad guy is SO BAD you wouldnt invite him to a party, not in a million years. Now, what makes him so bad? that could be interesting (and what would happen if he DID come to the party? hm.)

It's a fun thought, anyway...

 

[ctg]

One thing with a good character is that it always causes the "OH MY..." effect when you kill him or her. It tells them that you have created a perfect character, and that nothing last forever. Nothing. Not even the protagonist (now if I only can figure out how the story can end after his death.)

 

[Sapheron]

A good character is one who's appearance in a film, however they are portrayed, will offend many people. A good character has an identity in the mind of each reader, rather like someone you meet in real life and, like a real person, no two individuals will entirely agree on who and what they are.

 

[Peedee]

A good character is one who's appearance in a film, however they are portrayed, will offend many people. A good character has an identity in the mind of each reader, rather like someone you meet in real life and, like a real person, no two individuals will entirely agree on who and what they are.

There, that's fantastic. That's a spot-on definition.

 

[Malloriel]

Gotta say, Peedee, ephing love the icon! Dylan Moran is by far my favourite comedian in the universe(s). Known and unknown.