Continuous character development

As soon as I invent a character, I write the main personality traits by the character's name. I always give a character more than one, often conflicting traits, in order to add as much depth as possible. My aim is to strengthen the character's personality each time he or she speaks. I want to imagine my characters as real people. I believe that some people have a photo of their characters, which I think is a great idea, as it makes it far less likely to confuse elements of their appearance. There is nothing worse than a character having short blonde hair in one scene and short brown hair in another.
My characters are loosely based on someone I have met, or sometimes I will combine one or two real life people, to blend them into a different person. This is what I aim for, although I am very rarely totally satisfied with the results.

 

In the lands of Fic, this is called a face-claim.

The best thing about having a face-claim is that, when used properly, it relieves the writer from the pathology of over-describing the character. It helps stop the dreaded tip-to-toe description paragraph that never has any contextual support. It allows the writer to engage the character's physical aspect and note those particular traits - separated out and away from the whole - that would be noted by other characters depending on the situation, interaction, relationships, etc.

I beg to differ. Worse than this is having the character's hair mentioned scene after scene after scene. This is manhandling the reader.

 

In my Opal story, Patrick is face-claimed on Troy Kinne. (don't judge!) When Timor first meets him, broad frame and hooded "Home & Away" eyes are the first description we get, and that's it for a while. No tip-to-toeing, thank you. Timor doesn't use Home & Away as a descriptor, of course, obviously, but those eyes seem to be everywhere on Australian TV and FIlm (Troy, Sam Worthington, All the Hemsworths, Luke Arnold, it's everywhere)

 

Well yes, if you follow the dictum that truth is stranger than fiction, because in fiction we need things to seem possible. In reality of course no such rule exists. For example, I've known many females who had short blonde hair one day and long hair of a completely different color the next. Once a girl at work showed up shortly before the 4th of July with red, white and blue hair!

I vote that characters should stake a 'hair claim' and stick to it for recognitions' sake! Unless it's a mercurial character and change is the essence of it's personality.

Oh wait, just looked up at title of thread... continuous character development. Well, that requires constant change, right?

 

If I understand you correctly, it seems to me that you want a character that just "wows.' You want people to close your book and still be thinking of your main character. And you're question, as it were, is trying to figure out what precisely is wrong with your character building process and why you characters feel largely unsatisfying.

I can't say for sure, but your methods seem largely methodical as opposed to organtic. You're "forcing" traits onto your character, as opposed to trying to build your character into something that works for the story. It's almost like you're thinking "Well, she needs a flaw now. Still not there. Maybe if I make her cynical. Okay, that still doesn't work. Let's add a dash of sarcasm." The issue is that you don't build depth by just piling on more traits. I hear sometimes writers say, "I layer my characters with flaws." That's all well and good, but often those flaws don't actually work for the story.

And the proof is in the pudding that you're not 1oo% satisfied with the result.

So, let me make a couple suggestions:

1) Let's simplify your character to the basics. You're describing all these things you have and this very complicated process, but you don't have the three critical traits: Goals (what they want), motive (why they want it), conflict (why can't they have it). You can actually create a pretty deep character just focusing on only these three things.

2) Let's get you a basic plot structure. That's your exhibition, your rising action, climax, falling action, and resolution. A lot of people have neglected plot structure, but it's so critical in creating your character's personality. This is where stuff happens to the character and your character then has to react to the stuff.

3) A theme. It's more than having a story, the story should actually say something. Having an actual theme is what's going to help decide on how things work out and how the characters will contribute to the story. It's very difficult to create a wow character, without an actual theme.

When you put these three things together, it works kind of like this: Character's goal is what creates the central plot. The motive, build's the character's back story. The conflict is what sets up the rising action. The theme helps you decide on how you'll do the setting, tone, and pacing. It'll also help decide on how the plot should go, because you're trying to make a point about something. It also will help you decide on what role side characters will play. This also will determine how your character is supposed to react when the going gets rough.

The story then progresses into the climax. This is where the character is tested and the theme finally hits the climax.

Bella was not dull because she didn't do anything in Twilight. She was dull because she couldn't do anything in Twilight. There was no real conflict. Because there was no conflict, the story had no rising action. And without that, Bella had no ability to grow as a character.

 

@Kallisto nailed it. It's all about the structure of the story, and characters must play their parts. They need to be fit in properly, like pistons in an engine, so that their conflicts with each other drive everything in the story forward to the climax and conclusion.

All I can really add to what she said is to give an example. And I never in a million years would have thought I'd be talking about the George Lopez show in here, but I happened to catch an old episode recently—the one where George's son Max turns out to have dyslexia which is why his grades are all so bad, so they try hiring a tutor. The first one is Paris Hilton, playing to her usual type of brainy studious type (no really, she did) but she couldn't get through to him and then it turns out the sister's boyfriend Jason was able to make him understand how to do algebra. Max brought home a report card with a B minus in algebra, but otherwise solid D's across the board. His parents were incredibly proud. This is what's known as a turning point or a reversal of fortunes in the plot line, where things go from good to bad for a character or from bad to good—you should have several of these. In fact the stakes should go up each time, this is the rising action Kallisto was talking about. But now George, the dad, decides Jason needs to tutor Max in all his subjects. This creates powerful tension because Carmen, the sister, wants Jason to be her boyfriend, and now he won't have time to do anything with her for the foreseeable future.

Here we see how the characters create the plot through their conflict. George sees himself in Max because he also apparently had dyslexia, but in his day of course nobody had ever heard of it or knew how to deal with it, so he wants every effort to go into 'fixing' his son. His wife Angie understands Carmen's desire to have a boyfriend who can actually do stuff with her, so this sparks arguments between George and Angie as well as between Max and Carmen, with Jason stuck in between both arguments like the rope in a tug-of-war.

Each character has a motivation and a stake in the game—what's decided affects them all differently, so this puts them at odds with each other. This episode made me realize it can be put like this: when one character solves their problem, it causes problems for the other characters. Then if one of those characters manages to solve their problem, it causes new problems for the rest and the fighting enters a second round. And a third, and on and on to the end.

I also watched Alien recently and noticed how perfectly it's structured. Constant reversals of fortune for the characters—one seems to be winning one moment and then comes crashing down when another character solves their problem and creates new problems for the rest. I also noticed much of it is structured like those old 'lifeboat' movies, where a bunch of mismatched people from wildly different walks of life are thrown together in a desperate situation, often in a lifeboat when the ship is sinking, and they have to fight for what course of action to pursue. If any one character gets their way it will cost the rest high stakes, in some cases their life. High stakes like this really bring the conflicts to boiling point and make the drama powerful and palpable. Alien has this kind of structure throughout—the Nostromo is like a big lifeboat, but at one point they decide to get in the lifeboat and blow up the Nostromo with the alien on board. From one life boat to an even smaller one. But guess what? There's too many people, the lifeboat won't carry them all. So they don't do that, at least until a few more get whittled down and finally there's only Ripley and Jonesy the cat.

And then comes a massive reversal of fortunes. It seems Ripley and Jonesy are now safe and headed toward civilization, but alas and alack! Unbeknownst to them, the monster snuck aboard unseen and is there in the lifeboat! Suddenly the safe haven becomes even greater danger.

For story structure like this to function all your main characters need to be driven. Nobody weak or wishy-washy, unless they're going to find their strength. A non-functioning piston does nothing to propel the story forward. One of the biggest mistakes made by beginners, and often by professionals for that matter, is weak characters. They must be active rather than passive.

Sorry all I did was make jokes yesterday, I didn't really see a question in the OP and just latched onto the talk about physical appearances.

 

I'm not really sure what the question is here, maybe there isn't one and you're just starting a chat?

But I've never been one to put a face that all ready exists to my characters. I like to imagine him/her myself so they feel like they are 'mine' and I'm not just listing features. I find it hard to keep an existing person in my head as a character I've created because I normally associate that person in another role. I also never base my characters on real people. I nick traits I like. For example: my mother is the sort of person who speaks before she thinks. This can make her come across as insensitive and harsh. She also tends to just say what she thinks and this gets her into the trouble, not because she says the truth but because she often drops people in the shit. But she dislikes when that is done to her. It's been a real problem for her in her life and constantly a point of conflict. It's a fault in her that is very hard to endure sometimes but also a good thing sometimes. I've stolen that before.

I don't tend to list personality traits, that doesn't work for me, a list means nothing to me I like to see those traits in action. So I'll write a short scene or a scenario of that person's key personality traits. The only thing I'll list is ideas for scenarios I can drop in throughout the story. How can I continue to show these traits helping and/or hindering throughout and what conflict does it cause?

Everyone works their own way but I tend to like character focused things, although everyone can admit plot and character are equally as important and you can't have one without the other.

I just plan my characters separate from the plot to begin with. I have my plot in mind, but try to create my character as a separate thing. And give them a life beyond the plot. Then merge plot and character together.

 

I neglected to mention the actual character profiles for the George Lopez show above. George is very strong-willed and oblivious, doesn't really care about other people's problems if he's working on one of his own, but he's charming and affectionate in a sort of childlike way. His wife Angie is a people pleaser, she wants everybody's voice to be heard and is nice to everybody to a fault. George has seen a lot more life than her, she's naive and optimistic, but her heart is in the right place. He often makes fun of her for these traits, and she sighs in frustration but is accepting of his childish nature. They clash, this is what drives most episodes, but in the end they reconcile and they really do love each other. I should add, Angie often latches onto something and decides she needs to get involved, some community project or helping the poor or something, and when she does she can't be put off or swerved. So in her way she's also strong-willed, but very different from George.

Basically they break down into the classic conservative vs liberal personality traits, but of course with some real personality injected to make them more than just types. It helps to learn about things like this and then examine people you know and characters in shows, movies and stories to see how their types form their character or personality. You'll find understanding different types is vitally helpful, but don't fall into the trap of only making people represent a type. By observing how type affects real people and well-written characters you'll see how it can be done.

In a way Max and Carmen are sort of little carbon copies of their mom and dad. Jason is the star football player with a scholarship to get into a great college, always been a straight A student, student council, the driven winner type, and he's very friendly and helpful. Their characters play off each other perfectly to drive the conflicts that make up the stories. George's mom is a cynical, sarcastic old woman who just says exactly what's on her mind no matter the situation. She's sort of like George but turned up to 11, and often says what even he is too tactful to say. Many of George's problems are caused by her neglect and abuse but she refuses to own up to any of it and instead blames him for being too weak to deal with it. And as a result of how he was raised by his mom, George is often neglectful or semi-abusive to his own children and other people—it's the classic chain. Then Angie informs him he's doing exactly what was done to him and needs to change his ways. In a sense the show is built on the idea of trying to outgrow bad family patterns, but long-ingrained habits make that difficult. I suppose this is a theme of the show.

You create a web of characters like this who relate to each other in specific ways.