So, when I'm writing, especially first person, I am my character. I'm writing someone who thinks like I would think in certain situations and feels the way I would in certain situations. I think that's pretty normal and a way to flesh out a character, even one let's say isn't too similar to you. But we draw on what we've been through to build our cast of characters. Just wondering how many of you feel like you've created a character similar to yourself. Are there any personal traits that you've passed on? Is there anything wrong in creating characters in our likeness? I see it as a benefit. Just wondering how you all might feel about this.
I enjoy writing a wide cast of characters...some I guess I would consider like me, but a good many others who are certainly not, but I get attached to them all in one way or another, even the ones who are dark and villainous.
Almost all of my characters bear some sort of resemblance to myself, personality-wise. I've created characters that are essentially me with a few switcharoos to create a unique character, and others that are drastically different. Some believe one of the best ways to create characters is to take parts of yourself and add to them to build the foundations of multiple characters. That way, you can always relate to them and use your own personal experiences in your writing to make the character more believable and relatable. For myself, I think it works either way (to start with a random idea or to build off yourself), but there are definitely benefits to using parts of yourself or giving similarities between writer and character.
I kind of dislike myself, so I hope not. But of course, myself is my only medium of perception so naturally everything filters through it.
I have always thought that, theoretically, it's not a good idea to write characters based on yourself. It's easy to make a character act the way you would act, but one important component of a writer's professionalism is his ability to make up characters that are different from himself – based on various people he has met in his life or read about or heard about. A good writer is supposed to be able to notice different kinds of people and understand them and make up fictional characters, taking perhaps one trait from one person and another one from another. Just like it's easy to write about events you have experienced personally, but a really good writer is able to make up events similar to the ones he has only heard of or read about – or even something unheard of. Not that I'm very good at it. ;-)
“Writers don't write from experience, although many are hesitant to admit that they don't. ... If you wrote from experience, you'd get maybe one book, maybe three poems. Writers write from empathy.” - Nikki Giovanni
I totally get this, and I agree with it, but I would modify it slightly, because to me, when you see other people going through things (what's being called empathy here) it becomes a part of your experience. It's just that you experienced seeing other people go through it, rather than going through it yourself. And when you see others undergoing things, you can understand it because you've gone through similar things or can imagine it. So yes, it's through the agency of empathy, but it's also your experience. But yes, there is a big difference between writing characters as if they're you and writing them as if they're other people. You need to be careful writing characters like yourself that they don't become self-insertions. Best if you just give them certain of your traits, as someone said above. It can be hard to find objectivity otherwise (though I'm sure some writers can do it).
Someone once told me that everyone you meet in your dreams is yourself, and I used to be kind of dismissive of that line of thinking until I started really trying to develop characters in my fiction writing. One way I hit upon to do this was to take some particular aspect-- how I would act in a certain situation, or how I remember acting at a certain age, or how I imagine myself acting under various hypothetical circumstances. I would take those little snippets of myself and build upon them. I use the word "act" a lot in this explanation, because another way I think of it is based on a definition of acting (like in a play) I once heard: behaving authentically under inauthentic circumstances. So what I do is imagine myself under radically different circumstances, including a different past etc., and then think how I might behave in such a situation. Of course the person in that situation would no longer really be "me" under any normal definition, but hopefully whatever of my real self is in there can supply the authentic part of their behavior. I'm really with the Buddhists on this one, individuality is an illusion and we're all made up of a bunch of different and sometimes contradictory things. You contain multitudes, you already have all the characters you need if you just do a little bit of analysis.
I am a fictional character that comes from the same source as the characters I put in my stories. I hope if I ever encounter my author, it will bear some resemblance to me: hunched over its desk, drinking coffee, making sure I have a character arc and all that. Or at least that it doesn't have tentacles.
The thing is that readers aren't going to know what's completely made up and what's borrowed from reality. And even if they could I'm not so sure it matters. Good writing is good writing no matter how you get there. I think it helps flesh out characters when they resemble you or someone you know at least when you start creating them. I've also created characters from complete scratch, and found that it's quite a bit harder to flesh those ones out. Sure, it can be done. It's just a bit of a harder process to make them genuine, in my experience.
Empathy might be part of it, but our experiences do affect our writing for sure. Sounds like this guy didn't have much life experience to go on, but I could fill many libraries with everything I've lived through. Writing what you know always carries a level of honesty with it even in pure fiction.
No, they aren't. What I meant to say is if you write about yourself, you can end up having too little variety, which means your readers will like your writing less than someone's who can create more variety.
Sometimes I create characters I don't understand and delve into what makes them tick the same way I might a real person whom I don't understand.
I am close to characters that I roleplay for a long time, simply because spending time in the mindset of a character creates a weird bond. I sometimes miss "being" a character if it's been shelved for a long time. However, I actively avoid creating characters that are heavily based on myself. It's something one's ought to avoid in both RPGs and writing: When a character "is you", taking critique on the character's alignment/opinions can fall as personal insults. That's the slippery slope leading down to a mary sue. We as people are infinitely boring, uninteresting and plain. There's a rare "Oh my" time when you meet a person who is interesting to such a degree their character / mannerism immediately creates an impression - unfortunately, that's what most characters should be like in writing. Creating a character and basing their opinions on yours can, without you even noticing, make your story littered with pure propaganda. Obviously there'll be personality traits or preference of an author that will reflect in their work. I found the easiest way to work around this was to identify these traits and either emphasise/amplify them or actively subvert them. Hobbies and interests? Unless it's a joke, don't do it. It tends to be cringe.
