A good question, and not an easy one to answer. I do feel that "character" is one of my writerly strong points. I've had all sorts of trouble with them in the past, such as defaulting to archetypes and giving them insufficient depth and detail, but now... I'm really not sure. I feel that I can make interesting, unique, realistic and complex characters if I aim to. One thing I could stand to do better is character tics, those ideosyncratic little quirks. My characters' body language can sometimes feel a bit generic. And sometimes I make my characters too similar to one another, even within the same story and certainly across stories. What can I say? I have a type. And I suppose that, on occasion, my story dudes and dudettes lack clearly defined motivation and/or agency. Some of them are just sort of drifting through life, all listlessly... But I'm getting better at it all.
I wouldn't take it quite that far, but that's an interesting approach. It should result in three-dimensional characters, as long as you don't just tack on 'good' or 'bad' stuff to fulfill the formula.
My characters keep dying then coming back to life, inexplicably, nine years later. Oh wait... that's this thread Seriously, though, I tend to make supporting characters more interesting than main characters.
My biggest issue is and always will be emotions. For some reason, I´m only able to get extremely emotionally vulnerable young females right, and that ticks me off because never in my life has a vulnerable female protagonist actually connected to the main story.
I have trouble expressing emotions in my characters. I'm not an expressively emotional individual. My reaction to most things in life is "meh." So when I have to write emotions for characters I always feel like I'm writing William Shatner in Terror at 30,000 Feet but for everyone else it's normal everyday drama.
I don't normally have a problem with characters - as in making them all be a certain way. I tend to struggle with different aspects of a character each time. Normally GOAL is no problem for me. But in my current work, because my characters situation changes so drastically, her goal changes too and that has been a problem for me. Making it relevant but not having other goals get forgotten. She has an important mission to accomplish. But at times that is put to the back of her mind while she tries to survive and navigate a ruthless new world.
The DSM contains all the diagnostic criteria doctors use. We are on version 5, but the DSM IV is what I am most used to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM-IV_codes <-- There are some helpful links in there for understanding diagnoses. I've worked in mental health for about 8 years now, not as a clinician, but I'm pretty well versed if you have any questions or if you want to know if something is realistic/believable. Most diagnoses have a subreddit where you can find real people talking about real struggles too.
I think they just meant: give your good guys very palpable flaws, and give your bad guys very palpable motivations -ones that readers can understand and even somewhat agree with. It wasn't so much about the actual percentages themselves, but what the percentages represented. But you were sort of getting on that track with three-dimensional characters anyway.
Not exactly a “struggle” but more like forgetfulness on my part. Sometimes I get so carried away with who the character is I forget about the theme of the story and the characters particular motivations within the narrative - sometimes this works to my benefit though and the characters actions come across as more realistic. I guess thinking about this if I have to think too much about the motivations of the character within a story then that particular character should remain on the periphery of the narrative rather than be a major focal point. A lot depends on how you approach your writing really. Some stories can be instigated by a plot idea from which characters fit into and some plots give birth to certain types of characters. I think this is something I personally need to consider more when picking, choosing and/or developing characters within any given narrative. This is an issue for me as I’ve created a world with multiple characters that are quite fleshed out and the urge to squeeze them all in at once sometimes gets the better of me.
I use a few things that might be considered gimmicks: I have one character who speaks formally, and never uses contractions. I have another who is very terse and precise: you first meet him when he gives the antagonist two minutes (and no more) of his time for their first meeting. I have another who's trying desperately to enjoy her life, so she gushes a lot. But the big thing, I think, is to carefully choose their words according to their feelings and background. Engineers, scientists, soldiers, ballet dancers, children, and corporate execs tend to each use different vocabularies. Highly empathic characters (like my MC) tend to choose different words than near-sociopaths (my antagonist). Teen nerds use different words than teen jocks. A lot of my time is spent choosing the exact right words when I'm revising. I can spend an hour on one sentence of dialogue.
I do worry when new writers decide they must give their characters 'flaws.' I'm a believer that flaws arise FROM the characters, and shouldn't be something tacked on for balance. That character trait 'list' people are sometimes encouraged to make before they begin writing? I'm not sure that's such a great idea. Obviously, as you build your plot, you'll need to know what role your characters will play in your story. But what their personalities are like can emerge more naturally, as the story develops. Try imagining interactions between your characters. These interactions don't have to be written, or even part of the story. But if you can picture characters talking, or doing things together, or having an argument about something, or needing to agree about something, or reacting to something that's happening —that's where 'flaws' as well as strengths will emerge. Let yourself get immersed in the scene, and play around with what you've discovered. "Hear" them speaking, watch what they do. Pay attention to facial expressions, body language, hesitations, etc. Does one character tend to steamroller another character? Does one character hunch his shoulders and refuse to speak, when he's not happy with what's going on? Does one character storm out of the room? Does a character pat a friend on the back, when the friend is distressed? Or does that character attempt to create a diversion instead? All these kinds of visualisatons help develop a character's personality in a natural way. Flaws will emerge, as will strengths.
All my main characters are varying shades of me. Granted, putting some of yourself into a character is good. But I didn't realize how much of a clone of me my current FMC is until I took a personality test as her and saw the result. (A good exercise, BTW, 10/10 would recommend.)
Cool! I’m glad it’s helping I have 4 favorite personality profiling systems, and my closest match across all 4 is my lead antagonist But I also have a narrator who’s my near-opposite and personality profiling has always helped me make characters different from myself
I can't do that. Well, I could, but not even my wife would read it. "Mr. Congeniality" is not in my trophy case. I have dear friends who are very different from me, who I wouldn't want to be, but I whose company I enjoy. That's what I want (most of) my characters to be like.
I swear my biggest issue is copycat characters across different stories because I fall so in love with certain types and certain characters I have a hard time letting go and it shows.
Many good tacticians are lousy strategists and vice versa. If you have a character that is either (or both) you should make it clear to yourself what is difference between tactic/strategy.
I have problems with my characters liking each other too much--I have to go back and put more conflict and mistrust in, and remind myself that these people have reasons they can't just get along. The way I've come to think of it is that every character should have at least one bit where they are uncool. If a character looks cool even when they're failing or suffering, they're not going to be relatable. It's okay for even quite stoic and serious characters to crack a smile, be the butt of a joke, break down in tears or to trip and stumble once in a while. When I think of characters that were meant to be a big deal but made little impression on me, the common thread seems to be that the author kept them cool at all times.
It's said most vices are just virtues taken to extreme. There's no such thing as flaws: there's characteristics that are ill-suited to the situation. E.g.: Patience and deliberation when immediate action is required. Flying by the seat of your pants when it's important to consider the situation and develop a plan. Some of my MC's virtue are empathy and kindness, and they're also some of her flaws. Caring about people comes with a price, and sometimes that price turns out to be far more than you'd have been willing to pay, or should ever have to. Another flaw is her lust for fruit-filled donuts. It's insanely powerful. Bakeries, in the morning, roll up like pill bugs when they see her coming. And if there's no donuts when you visit them in the afternoon, it's on you for waiting too long.
I’ve always considered characters my strong suit (and storyline my weakest), but looking back at it now, I’ve created a lot of anti Mary Sues. My first OC (made when I was probably in fourth grade) was bad just for the fun of it and had no actual reason. She was also way too powerful. Now, my POV in my current story has been giving me some issues. It’s a huge part of the plot that they’re a stone-cold killer, and sometimes I forget to show that they actually do have empathy and love. There’s also a recently introduced character who looks like an anti Mary Sue at first, but she actually has a lot of redeeming qualities and I think she’s pretty likable once you get to know her. Well, mostly the “love to hate them” kind of likable, but also the “damn, I feel bad for them” kind. My point is, I think I’m getting better with the balance of strengths and weaknesses.
I write what I know. That means that most of my main characters are either lesbians or they suffer from mental illness, or both. The problem is I have written a lot of non-fiction about my mental health and I find it hard to translate that into fiction because I want to tell a lot rather than showing, because telling is what I write about in non-fiction. ‘This happened and because of my mental illness I felt like this and I thought this’ etc. I have a tendency to do the same in fiction. I’m trying very hard to change that into showing rather than telling, but it’s tricky.
Hiya woodstock. My name's Dez i am also gay i live with my civil partner in Lincolnshire. I have bi polar i personally find writing cathartic. But I totally agree with you I find it hard not to include that my characters are gay or have mental illness. I am glad I am not the only one. Thank you des.
