Should I avoid "The ___ One"?

In simplest terms, just about every character both in fiction and non-fiction can be boiled down to "The ___ One" but is that really a bad thing to encounter? From what little I understand, it's generally 'bad' if said trait is their defining character trait, and what defines them is the entirety of the character. But what about when that...isn't the case?

For example, the main character of my RWBY fanfic is 'The Stoic', he can't physically process or express emotion. However what sets him apart from other Stoic characters, he constantly makes attempts at understanding emotion anyway. To him, in order to be a 'better' person he needs to understand the 'point' of emotion. I think this makes for an interesting dynamic narratively since he can (technically) experience emotion, but he doesn't understand what causes them or how to physically express them. So he's kinda...half stoic. His greatest fear is that if he gives into emotion even a little bit, he'll become something frowned upon.

I usually try to use 'The __ one" as a "base" for their core personality trait, but then I try to add a little twist to it. Something that makes it not quite what you expect.

 

I think you might be limiting your character by slapping a single trait on them
and then barely branching out from that. Unless they are flat, then they have
a wide range of traits, even if a lot of them are internal.
I had a character that didn't understand certain emotions and feelings, so she
learned them as she went.

Maybe that is kinda the same direction your character can go, learn them,
and then sort out how to manage them to some degree. Think of how exaggerated
things can get, or how insane emotions make 'normal' people. That will be kinda
like your character, but trying to tone it down instead of dialing it up.
A mini personal arc if you will.

Good luck and happy writing.

 

Characters need to be well rounded. If you can boil them down to "this is the character that's like that", you're doing it all wrong.

 

I have no idea what RWBY is—runs with big yaks? Room where blue is yellow? Personally I would say the actual words at least the first time, and then maybe abbreviate afterwards, otherwise most people won't know what you're talking about.

But mainly I wanted to say, this isn't what stoic means. I know, it's a common misconception and a lot of people will get what you mean—like Mr. Spock. My username is a derivation of Stoic, and I guess I'm part of a minority who know what it actually means. I mean feel free to go ahead and use the misconception if you want to, everybody will get what you mean.

Stoicism really refers to an ancient philosophy, and they didn't lack emotion. They learned how to turn down the volume on troublesome emotions if that became necessary, so they could think their way through situations rather than just reacting automatically. They definitely experience emotions just like anybody else. If you have a character who doesn't, he probably has some kind of internal disconnect or possibly something like Asperger's syndrome or some mild form of autism. Or he might be a sociopath or psychopath?

 

I've always taken the common meaning of stoic to mean "endure uncomplainingly in the face of hardship", or something along those lines.

 

I wouldn't really call that a misconception—that's pretty much what it does mean. But there's this idea floating around that a stoic feels absolutely no emotion, or almost none. That's the one the OP is referring to.

 

In my defense, the incarnation of 'The Stoic' I'm referring to is the TV Tropes version, which does function that way. I tend to pull from TV Tropes a lot when making characters (there are some genuinely fun ones in there) but I don't always follow the descriptions to the letter.
I think Stoic is in one of those situations where 'It has two definitions now, and one of those is a 'false' one made in modern times', ya know, like how 'Gay' used to be an expression of happiness and joy.

 

I didn't mean it was a misconception - I mean, that's how the word is commonly understood. I'm not familiar with the details of stoicism as a philosophy.

You know, I'd never heard the alternative definition before today.

 

In fact Mr. Spock was based on the idea of a stoic as a person without emotion, though of course he was half human, and the whole point was that often he showed plenty of emotion and tried to deny it behind that cocked eyebrow. Because he was... embarrassed.

 

Being "the one" (I'm assuming your are referring to the one and only person that can do something or defeat something if not ignore the rest of this comment), but being that isn't a personality trait, I don't think it should be a title that defines them. I must admit "the one" cliche does put me off a little bit, especially when no one really explains why they are so special, why they can do something that their oh so wise, powerful, more knowledgeable mentor can't do. I also dislike when being that defines them and they have been built to fit this role, even heard the saying "fit a round peg in a square hole"? It basically means turn tropes and cliche characters on their heads and that makes it interesting for me.

I do dislike when someone is given the title of 'saviour' when they have done nothing to be rewarded that title. Or they always seem to do the least saving yet always get the credit. "The one" idea is very similar maybe even the same thing. Only the saviour can whatever and only the one can do whatever. I do find them a little cringey but in the right plot, written by a skilled writer just about any cliche or trope can be awesome.

 

Im not sure what you mean by that?
Is it not more of a trope of fantasy/scifi etc?

I mean its quite easy to avoid in those two.

Theres thousands of books that tell a story of someones simple life etc that boil down to just a thing that happened to them

I would say dont do it personally.
Unless you're writing the next harry potter/lord of the rings type thing

 

No no, the "__" is for filling it in with various personality traits, ya know the 'angry' one the 'flirty' one etc.
What I usually do is pick a 'core' trait and then apply buffer traits to fit the character I want to write.
Sometimes the core trait is defining, but other times the core trait is more subdued allowing other traits to shine.
It depends a lot on the character I make and the role I want them to fill.

Very rarely do I ever use a *single* personality trait, unless I want to exaggerate it but I like to pick a core one and branch out from there depending on their history.

I don't think I've ever made an *explicitly* angry one or *explicitly* chosen one etc etc, I have used those traits as 'core' traits though.

one of my characters is the 'innocent' one (as in so childlike that you want to protect it) but she's usually the most insightful of the group and very perceptive of things she might not seem perceptive of at first. She's also very honor driven and can be vicious when she wants to.

 

Oh i see! My bad haha.
In that case it might be limiting to pick a trait and go from there.

I tend to pick characters that fit the story and not the other way around if that makes sense. Usually a character just kind of happens as you start writing them, at least thats been my experience

 

I would not necessarily say it's a bad thing but your characters should usually have more than one trait to work off of. I can summarize the characters in my newest story using a "nickname" or their defining trait but their actual personality goes further.

For instance, I have a team of 5 in this story, I refer to one as "Group Mom" in my notes.

She is motherly in an defensive authority sense, strong and determined but hardly coddling. Usually, "Group Mom" female characters have roles as healers or ranged casters; she is a close-combat melee fighter. Her personality and skills are all grounded in her history. She does actually have a young son who is the sole recipient of her tender side, but he is not a part of the adventure. Achieving a better life for her son is her driving force through the story.

See? I can boil her down to " The Motherly One," but she is dynamic.

 

To be fair the 'core' trait is like, the 'baseline' while the support traits are more like stat bonuses. I typically pick two, sometimes three support traits along with a TV Tropes trope to work around.
As I said rarely do I ever just go with the Trope on it's own, My 'angry' one is actually a bit more than that, she can be jealous and such yes, but she's also very playful and loves to fight, she also has arachnophobia for a very legitimate reasons (I mean beyond 'spiders, ewww') and she quite often gets herself into trouble with her overconfidence. Her 'angry' side does come out, but often it's a result of something deeper than her being in a bad mood.