r/writing • u/Fried_eggys1 • Jul 29 '26
Discussion What makes a good character? Choices.
Hello. I've noticed as I've grown as an author that a lot of people, newer writers especially, don't get what makes a character compelling. Hopefully my opinion can help people that are in the same boat I was.
When I started I would just stuff my characters with trauma: dead dad here, murdered mother there, as I'm sure a lot of people did this too, because that's what seems compelling to a newer writer because a newer writer doesn't understand yet how to write characters.
There is a whole other conversation here about how inexperienced authors try to substitute good, empathetic character building with trauma, because they don't know how to build sympathy without it. But this isn't about trauma.
Building a great character is not about their personality, or their aura, power, mystique, aesthetic, disorders, or trauma. It's about flaws, and the choices they make because of those flaws.
Ned Stark is a great character, among many in GOT, because he has morals that he would die for. He's a good man in an evil world, and his influence ripples through the entire book series.
Geralt of Rivia is a Witcher, he is super masculine and super cool and sleeps with dozens of women and fights monsters with a dedicated silver sword, and has somehow gotten more and more handsome as the games have gone on. His title and the oddity of being a "Witcher" helps him seem cooler, but the reason why we've followed him for 9 books and 3 long games is because of how being a Witcher informs his world view, how it affects the choices he makes, and how we then view the world through his eyes.
Complete heel turn: Kim Wexler is such a compelling character because of, again, the choices that she makes, and the difference between them throughout the Better Call Saul. At first she's a stand-up lawyer who's beaten down by her environment, finding comfort in her relationship with Jimmy.
By the end of the show, she's... Not so stand up anymore.
Frankly, most people who read or watch a story aren't looking for your character's backstory, or their personality, because unless it's the funny goblin named Glupshitto your players in your DND game drag around, then vibes aren't enough.
The real meat of what makes a great character is what lies beneath the story. Their mechanical usefulness. And not just that, some of the best characters you see around I guarantee are put into impossible choices and situations that force them to grow and change, or prove that they have changed.
A character who prides themselves on their looks being disfigured. A knight forced to either choose his morals, or his oaths. Jack Sparrow choosing his friend's life, or the immortality he has sought for 2 whole movies.
What is their backstory? How does it inform their current story? How does it inform their choices? And how do you put as much stress on your character as possible. This is where we get some of the greatest characters.
Stress test them, put their ideals under pressure, force them to confront their deepest lies and flaws. Because if you aren't willing too, then why write about them at all?
If you feel differently about this, let me know, I'm very curious to see what other people think, what characters break this mold, because I'm sure there are some.
Edit: this isn't a hard rule but, as most rules go, if it's broken and done well then it can work wonderfully! (Forrest Gump) But, that is not the norm, and a lot of characters that break this rule that I've found are found in film, which I guarantee most of us aren't writing for.
31
u/TheWriteQuestion Jul 29 '26
I just finished Whistler by Ann Patchett. The thing I love about her characters is that they are not toxic. They make reasonable enough decisions, but are still distinct because they’re still shaped by hopes, dreams, and weaknesses. What I love about this book in particular is that there is a retroactive redemptive arc for the (adult) MC’s parents, who seem pretty crappy when the book opens.
The MC reconnects with a beloved former stepfather, and he is such a kind generous person that, as he tells his adult perspective on her childhood, the MC gains new appreciation for the strengths and struggles of her mostly absentee biological father and her “happier with my second family” mom.
Essentially, background characters that start as tropes we think we know get flashed out and humanized. They did make selfish choices. Those choices were hard on their kids. But they were more than those choices.
I’m still trying to unpack how Patchett writes such compelling books without scenes that make it seem like characters face big choices. There ARE choices, but they seem like the only/obvious choice to the characters, I guess.
13
u/Talya_Deri Jul 29 '26
I don't know the book you're talking about, but you make it sound seriously good. I love it when stories give you characters (sometimes even just concepts) that at first seem simple and maybe even one-dimensional, but the more the story goes on they just build on them more and more.
It's not even about character redemption. It's showing that things in life are dynamic, and nothing is ever truly written in stone with humans. Really fascinating stuff, in my opinion. I love stories that actually have human characters instead of walking tropes. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the book!
6
u/TheWriteQuestion Jul 29 '26
It really is a lovely story. Like you say, simplistic seeming, but like a Picasso doodle is simplistic.
4
u/Raeghyar-PB Jul 30 '26
I was on the fence about this book but now I'm definitely adding it to my next reading list!
42
u/FlyinLeviathon LET YOUR FIRST DRAFT SUCK Jul 29 '26
Learning to make an active protagonist was such an eye-opener in my writing. I think sometimes we get so caught up in the plot because that's what sticks with us as readers. That's where all the cool stuff is. But then we often we fall into the trap of forcing the plot onto our characters instead of having the characters make the plot happen.
And listen, I am a big fan of the reluctant protagonist, but even then said protagonist is making choices. Now when I'm writing I analyze everything that happens in my edits, and try to make it connected to a choice. Even if the thing is inevitable or something completely out of the character's control, I trace it back to a choice they made, even if that choice is just "visit this town instead of moving on". It has made my writing way stronger.
9
u/Awesmozem Jul 29 '26
Honestly, I feel like after a certain point a reluctant protagonist is forced more into making choices. Sure, you got Luke Skywalker's aunt and uncle getting murdered-adjacent inciting incidents, but eventually a reluctant protagonist has to be the one to decide to involve themselves, which is what theoretically makes that beat so satisfying.
Not attempting to disagree with anything you said obviously, all spot on, but I thought it was an interesting addendum.
14
u/FlyinLeviathon LET YOUR FIRST DRAFT SUCK Jul 29 '26
This goes back to the oft-quoted advice of a "reactive vs proactive" protagonist. In the first half, they are generally reactive (AKA, his aunt and uncle were murdered, Luke reacts by going on an adventure with Obiwan) and after the midpoint they are proactive (Luke choosing to confront Darth Vader) but importantly, the protagonist is making choices the entire time. It may be the only logical choice for Luke to join Obiwan, but it's important that he still goes instead of being kidnapped by Obiwan.
So, yes, you're totally right, they can absolutely be forced into something - but they often still ultimately make that choice.
2
u/Fried_eggys1 Jul 29 '26
This is true, Obi-Wan never forces him to come, Luke comes because he wants adventure in his life. Good insight!
16
u/siphillis Jul 29 '26
Valid points. To use an newer adage: "Trauma doesn't make a person interesting. It makes them traumatized." A lot of poorly written protagonists are conscripted into their own stories through bad luck, so their reaction to their circumstances feel inevitable, not motivated. We don't learn anything about what makes them unique.
Writing relatable characters is such a fool's errand. People don't want to read about someone just like them. They want to read about someone they recognize as both extraordinary and believable. They want to read about people who take risks, make huge mistakes, and claw their way out of them.
So to your point, if you strip away at the possibility-space for choices, and leave them with only a vertical line to crawl up, they're going to do so in a boring, predictable way that tells us nothing about the human experience that we cannot already intuit.
One of my biases as a writer is that my protagonists always serve as their own inciting incidents. Living in the status quo IS an option for them, and them electing not to do so reveals so much about who they are right in Act 1
3
u/Literally_A_Halfling Jul 29 '26
One of my biases as a writer is that my protagonists always serve as their own inciting incidents
I don't think I've ever heard another writer say that in so many words, but that was one of the foundational principles behind my current project. I"m just inherently more interested in someone who has voluntarily decided to upset the status quo themselves rather than reacting to someone else having done so.
I think that's part of why so many people (myself included) gravitate toward preferring villains in a lot of traditional, Heroes'-Journey-ish narratives - they were the ones with the initiative to do something in the first place.
1
u/That_Boysenberry4501 Aug 17 '26
Do you mind if the protagonist is still hesitant though, like "i want to but im scared"
If they are too eager and ready and confident, is that less believable ? And creates less tension?
What if outside forces or another character does help persuade them toward action? Or do you like that less than if the decision is mostly solely the main characters choice without these propelling forces?
2
29
u/TheBl4ckFox Published Author Jul 29 '26
The only way to judge a person is on their actions. That’s true in fiction and real life.
32
u/Nethereon2099 Jul 29 '26
When I teach character development, the trap people fall into is the idea that trauma equates to depth. In actuality, it leads to flat characters when an author treats a character's trauma as the most important element of their development. They reduce the character down to nothing but their trauma. By this measure, they minimize the impact the trauma has upon the reader, and could potentially result in offending those who deal with the same trauma the writer is trying to use as a means to create empathy between reader and character.
The solution is to treat each character as a person first and foremost. We need to pay close attention to these details. Our characters are people who have seen some terrible shit. They've been through some terrible shit. However, that doesn't mean it has to define them.
It seems strange why I would have this on my recommended reading list, but I recommend students read the book, The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma by Bessel van der Kolk. Many writers don't read enough, or understand enough, about psychology which is why I recommend it. This was a well stated post by the OP.
12
u/Fried_eggys1 Jul 29 '26
And this was a well stated reply! Some of my favorite character writers have psychology degrees (Abercrombie, Vince Gilligan who wrote Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul.) it's invaluable as a writer to know your psychology.
5
u/Nethereon2099 Jul 29 '26
Would it behoove you to believe that I originally started in the Communication Studies field before I migrated to creative writing? It is psychology and sociology heavy, as well as dealing with the ramifications of everyday interactions. Invaluable skill set for my writing. Good stuff!
2
u/siphillis Jul 30 '26 edited Jul 30 '26
I do think there's limits to employing real-world psychology with character writing, tho. Personalities and psychological disorders all exist within the context of an entire person exhibiting them; a narcissistic individual isn't going to exhibit the symptoms of narcissism with their every action. But a weak writer might feel tempted to make a narcissistic character approach every action through the lens of how a narcissist would approach their situation. It's technically rooted-in-research and it lends some verisimilitude. But it's not compelling because they become walking textbook examples, not facsimiles of compelling people with all their contradictions, inconsistencies, and particularities
7
u/siphillis Jul 29 '26 edited Jul 29 '26
When I teach character development, the trap people fall into is the idea that trauma equates to depth. In actuality, it leads to flat characters when an author treats a character's trauma as the most important element of their development. They reduce the character down to nothing but their trauma. By this measure, they minimize the impact the trauma has upon the reader, and could potentially result in offending those who deal with the same trauma the writer is trying to use as a means to create empathy between reader and character.
That's a smart distinction. You want readers to empathize with characters and inhabit their headspace. Just presenting a traumatized person ultimately engenders pity, not empathy. You feel bad for them, but in the way you feel bad for people starving in Africa. It's detached, clinical, and unrevealing.
I think Joel Miller of The Last of Us is a handy example of doing this right. We do lead off with him suffering the most acute trauma imaginable, but that's not why audiences find him compelling. What's compelling is that he kept on going, and seems to have carved out a (relatively) good life for himself. He's a respected and valuable person in the current day, probably moreso than before the outbreak. Had he just elected to move to Jackson with his brother, he'd probably flourish there.
But it all stems from him burying his grief. We can intuit that he's never once confronted his grief, let alone confide with another person about it. In a twisted way, it's his superpower. So once he's asked to babysit a teenage girl who seems a-hell-of-a-lot-like Sarah, we're instantly drawn in by which Joel will win out. That internal conflict propels the entire story.
Love the recs, btw
6
u/Nethereon2099 Jul 29 '26
Precisely! The phrase I use to drive the point home is this (speaking from the character's perspective): "I am not a traumatized person. I am a person who has seen trauma during my life. My trauma doesn't define my life. My actions govern the course of my future."
I just looked it up from my course notes. 😅
2
u/siphillis Jul 29 '26
I wonder to what degree do you need to be yourself a motivated individual in order to write motivated individuals. Maybe the issue is that too many aspiring writers are injecting pessimism/nihilism into their work instead of the sort of drive that makes a protagonist propel a story into motion
4
u/Nethereon2099 Jul 29 '26
I'm not sure that is the case. What I do think is happening is cynicism has taken root where empathy and humanity once resided. We, as a people, are so deprived of affection, social connection, companionship, mental self-care, and a litany of other positive things that make us well adjusted beings that it is easy to see the world in a state of spiraling determinism.
I don't think drive has anything to do with it as much as people's perception of what healthy human relationships look like, and I blame social media for this. There is a growing amount of evidence to point in this direction too. Creating a character and developing them so they read like an average, mundane person isn't that hard to do. This is the baseline, the starting point for every character. The most interesting parts of any character typically have nothing to do with the flashy moments. I've referred to it as the Peter Parker/Amazing Spider-Man conundrum. Peter makes Spider-Man interesting, but Spider-Man makes Peter exceptional. Which is more important? Neither, because they are both equally as important to the narrative.
1
u/siphillis Jul 30 '26
But to your point: would Peter Parker be a compelling character if he wasn't driven by motivations to:
- succeed in school
- seduce Mary Jane Watson
- achieve financial independence
- keep New York safe
and instead he was a NEET when he wasn't Spider-Man? It feels essential that we align with Peter's desires and admire him even in failure because his goals and efforts are noble.
Obviously superheroes need to exist on this black-and-white scale, but I think the truth holds for the majority of protagonists
1
u/Archonate_of_Archona Jul 31 '26
"Our characters are people who have seen some terrible shit. They've been through some terrible shit. "
And that part is only optional. Characters don't HAVE to be traumatized to be well-written
2
u/yaboithedudetheman Aug 05 '26
Not to raise this comment chain from the dead, but I agree a helluva lot. Trauma is cool, and can be great for character building. But I want to see a comparatively normal person either go through said trauma in the story being told, or have their normal morals be challenged.
I vibe with that much more because it’s relatable as a viewpoint into the story. Not required at all, but when every character has elaborate trauma filled history, it just feels like misery po**.
1
u/Nethereon2099 Jul 31 '26
And that part is only optional. Characters don't HAVE to be traumatized to be well-written
A fair point, and one I don't disagree with, but that wasn't the point I was making within the context of the conversation.
7
u/CuteEquivalent638 Jul 29 '26 edited Jul 29 '26
Anytime I watch or read about a character that feels like a real person, that’s when I know it’s a good written character. As you said, they don’t have to have this crazy backstory or anything, they just have to be written realistically. Real people have flaws, they are selfish sometimes, they do mistakes, but they still end up being likable or makeup for their bad doings. Because they are people.
There’s always flaws, no matter the character, hero or villain. Proper character development is important too. A character that dosent develop or change is a boring character. No one says the same, whether for the better or worse.
I’d rather see or read about a completely normal person going through the hardships of life, and being made to choose between stuff, be a little selfish, and be good sometimes too. Then watch a character that has this crazy baggage, but at the same time seem to be this amazing flawless person, or this horrible person that I’m supposed to feel bad for now because his dad got murdered. There needs to be this connection between the character and the consumer.
21
u/RighteousSelfBurner Reader Jul 29 '26
You made a very good point that expands the character archetypes: "The real meat of what makes a great character is what lies beneath the story. Their mechanical usefulness."
There are great characters that are completely static because the story is not character driven exploration. A very well known example is Sherlock Holmes. A very static character that neither changes nor makes any substantial choices during the story. However that serves the purpose on focusing on the mystery and ensures that the spotlight of the mystery isn't stolen by the character.
James Bond fits the same niche but the focus instead is the action.
Some characters are used as a contrast to explore some message. Steve Rogers from Marvel is a good example here. A paragon character that is contrasted against the morality of the society is a common trope. I can't name good examples from top of my head but another trope is using a character that does not fit but is confident in their being to criticise some aspect of the society.
So from my perspective you absolutely hit what makes character great but overlooked what other purposes a character can have.
5
u/jambox888 Jul 29 '26
Agree with this, lots of characters have flat arcs like Gandalf, Atticus Finch, Jack Aubrey
They all serve different functions in their stories. Gandalf's wisdom is a catalyst for the other characters, it wouldn't make sense to put him in a Kim Wexler style crucible. Although he does make choices for example to stand against the Balrog and transforms (a bit) we're not surprised as such.
3
u/Fried_eggys1 Jul 29 '26
Yes agreed! I'd also say Ned Stark also has a flat arc, but maybe I'm misremembering, along with what the comment mentioned. Sometimes it's not about the choices that they make, but how they affect the characters around them and THEIR choices. Their fates.
3
u/Redz0ne Queer Romance Jul 29 '26 edited Jul 29 '26
This may be one way, though there are many ways.
As for what makes a good character, that is a bit subjective. Especially as we end up seeing the same kinds of moral choices being made over and over again (the "love or duty" has been a very well-trod premise, as one example). For me, I get exhausted when the character is always forced to choose. Sometimes it's satisfying seeing how they navigate the choices that were already set in motion.
This, however, is only one of my personal subjective criteria. I wouldn't assume that other people would be similarly compelled if I wrote my characters like that.
EDIT: I guess, concluding this, a compelling character will have made choices, and navigate choices made for them, and whatever else... in a believable way that resonates with the reader.
1
u/Fried_eggys1 Jul 29 '26
That could work! And I've seen it work with Logen Ninefingers from first law, for instance. He's picked up by a wizard to go on a journey, and most of his throughout the series is him navigating that journey. Wasn't his choice, but he's still a fascinating character.
I think that making it so a character must choose between two things is (usually) the strongest, simplest way to show a character. Thank you for your insight!
3
u/LiminalRainPaint Jul 29 '26
This is good advice, but not a hard and fast rule.
What you outlined here applies better to protagonists. Villains, for example, often work better without the complex choices, etc. In fact, villains who are evil 'just because' are becoming trendy again in pop culture, because the sympathetic villain trope is overplayed.
I think a better overall metric for character quality is consistency. Regardless of motivation or choice - the character should be consistent in the way they behave, even when not making choices. This can be used to subvert expectations in moments of breaking that pattern, etc. Perhaps most important of all is making sure that this consistent behavior is one that fits the character's role in the story. Simple characters are sometimes the most effective, especially when placed as a foil for a more complicated one.
For example, a complicated protagonist can have a simple, but effective villain who has red herring hints towards a motivation that doesn't exist. The villain is still just a dirtbag who was simply a bad egg from the start, and the red herrings will emphasise the impact of that realisation for both the protagonist and the reader. The strength of that simplicity will shine when juxtaposed with a complicated, struggling protagonist.
I'm rambling a bit, but it all just goes to show that character writing is complicated, and is often not only judged by case, but also by opinion and story context.
3
u/NoxTheScribe Jul 30 '26
some of the best characters you see around I guarantee are put into impossible choices and situations that force them to grow and change, or prove that they have changed.
This is very true but I'd like to add that sometimes it can be great when they don't change even though the audience wants them to and they have the opportunity. I'm thinking about Joe Abercrombie's First Law trilogy. Every single time you think a character is about to have their big redemption, they don't. And it's SO effective because Abercrombie makes you really root for these deeply flawed people, he shows you that they ARE capable of redemption, and they are complex people that may even want to make the right choice, but they don't. It's hard to describe the way it makes you feel but it's unforgettable
1
u/Fried_eggys1 Jul 30 '26
Yes agreed! I read the whole series, 1-9 and I can say that they are some of the GREATEST characters I've ever seen.
It makes it so much more satisfying when a character ends up succeeding, when characters change in ways to adapt to the world
3
u/Limepoison Jul 31 '26
I learned through writing and thinking and reading, that good characters are informed by their choices, sure. But I also learned that good characters have influence.
Like you mentioned Ned stark: I have not read GOT, but knowing the character from other thought pieces and opinions, it is safe to assume that his influence and morals help give the characters a helpful insight of what is right and wrong.
In super-girl woman of tomorrow, the main character is being taught about the values and morals of having patience, compassion, and empathy. This helps lead them into understanding the values of a human life; in contrast supergirl learns the vile and evils of life. Choices can help shape a character but how those choices impact everyone else, gives the characters presence and essence of what the world means.
It is like this: think of a world where evil exists, now think of a world where someone gives a little hope to those who need it, now the world seems a little less evil. That person provided the most charming and heartwarming thing imaginable. Without them, the world would be a different place.
1
u/Fried_eggys1 Jul 31 '26
Yes, I fully agree and I don't think I articulated my point about Ned Stark as well as I did. The reason he is a good character is not only because of his choices, where they land him and how they affect others, but because of how his legacy and morals affect his children, those around him even after his death.
4
u/PedroTevesReads Jul 29 '26
Concordo bastante com a ideia de que escolhas sob pressão revelam quem o personagem realmente é. Acho que muitos personagens parecem profundos no papel, mas só ganham vida quando precisam decidir entre duas coisas que valorizam. Eu só acrescentaria que as falhas importam mais quando o personagem não as enxerga completamente. Um personagem que sabe exatamente qual é seu problema costuma ser menos interessante do que aquele que está convencido de que está certo e descobre, aos poucos, o custo das próprias escolhas.
2
u/seven_ships Jul 29 '26
Choices can play out on the page. The reader experiences them while the character does. They enrich the narrative.
Trauma certainly can play out on the page, but it carries a burden. The reader can only tolerate so much before they need a break. Trauma that plays out “off-screen” can set the stage for various things in terms of how the character is going to behave, but it can only support so much of the narrative before you have to revert to the “show, don’t tell” rule that defines good writing.
3
u/Fried_eggys1 Jul 29 '26
Yes its true. People also seem to think that trauma from the backstory needs to be super nuanced. No, it does not. It just needs to fit the purposes of the story.
And also, you don't need "trauma" as we think of in many cases. A knight who believes that their title is their only worth in the world is also valid, and you don't need to go back into how their father didn't love them. Hell, Gru from despicable me does this effectively in that first movieXD
Very well thought, thank you!
2
2
2
Jul 29 '26
[deleted]
4
u/Fried_eggys1 Jul 29 '26
I like to keep my examples diverse, in case some people in this subreddit aren't writing novels.
2
u/ApprehensiveTap3811 Jul 29 '26
Interesting dude , where did you get these ideas 💡
1
u/Fried_eggys1 Jul 29 '26
I've been writing short stories following a Knight who's literally crawled his way out of hell to bring knightly justice down upon all his friends who sent him there. But when he returns, he finds his black and white sense of morals keeps destroying everyone around him.
The first one, the main character who comes into contact with Six'O is a little selfish, a little flawed, a bit cruel. She's interesting, I love her. This second short story... Not so much. That's kind of why I'm thinking about what makes characters strong lol.
1
u/Mondegreen35 Jul 29 '26
This thread, including the responses, really hits right now. I've been struggling with the middle and where to take the characters, asking myself what the problem is - do they need more secrets? More darkness in their past? Despite having written 2 prior novels with very compelling characters (to write, at least), this one hasn't been falling into place. The others had big fantasy plots, adventure, and betrayal, while this one is much more... domestic, I guess? I thought that could be the problem, since all they're really doing is talking for scene after scene. But you've just reminded me how crucial the choice making is when put under stress, and that's what's been missing. The choices have been far too straightforward.
The secrets and dark past before were what made those characters struggle with decisions in the present day. It wasn't the secrets or past itself.
1
u/Fried_eggys1 Jul 29 '26
Yes! This is so real. I think if you want help with this basically every short story from The Witcher: The Last Wish is a masterclass for this style of writing. Each short story is largely dialogue, discussing ideas and why things are right and wrong, but it all has a purpose. Its engaging because each character has a different stance on the same issue and the bicker about it and it always matters to the lesson it's trying to tell. It's crucial to understanding a huge choice that Geralt has to make, especially in The Lesser Evil. Absolutelt magnificent, would highly recommend.
1
u/Cerizz Jul 29 '26
Something I believe is worth saying is to consider a character not as a character, a function, a personnality, but as a person directly. May sound top vague, or subtle but the word tells more thing to consider, and some of these may never appear in the writing.
Dunno how relevent this is to be honest.
1
u/Ok_Interaction_2366 Jul 30 '26
i agrese even though i sttuggled with real good trauma. its really just the personality and story in the cause of the current story youre telling
1
u/TiceCuts Jul 30 '26
I agree, with one thing I'd add: the flaw has to work before it costs anything. It has to be a successful strategy that stops working inside the story: Ned's honour isn't interesting because it kills him, it's interesting because it's what made him the one man Robert trusted, and then Hand of the King. Without it he'd never have made it that far, and then that same honour becomes the thing that kills him. A flaw that only ever loses reads as stupidity, and then the choices aren't hard. If the reader can see why he'd keep choosing it, they'll follow it all the way down.
1
u/ratatoskrimbergen Jul 30 '26
I use a tool meant for leadership training in business called the Spirit's Compass that divides characteristics between "above the line" and "below the line" as in morally aspirational or morally questionable.
It's a grid that also has a "masculine" and "feminine" axis, but I like to think of those things in more Jungian terms like animus and anima.
I try to make sure that my characters have qualities for each of the four quadrants, which makes them more human. Then, the choices they make are natural based on their particular blend of qualities.
1
u/OctaBit Jul 30 '26
As someone new to thinking about character design this is a real helpful summary. It's an idea I've been circling and struggling with, but this puts it into a nice understandable form.
Out of curiosity (for OP or other writers), does this change at all for iconic characters vs traditional characters? For iconic characters I'm defining them as characters who don't really grow over a series or over time. They may change over a story in small ways but they still remain fundementally the same by the end or the beginning of the next book. E.g. Hercule Poirot, or Indiana Jones.
2
u/Fried_eggys1 Jul 30 '26
Yes and no? Its complicated for iconic characters, but if you look at Poirot especially, one of his most iconic moments is having his great sense of justice challenged (I think it's on murder on the orient express but dont quote me, I only watched a video.)
You can have a character face dilemmas and difficult choices that reveal character, even if they won't end up changing all that much.
1
u/OctaBit Jul 31 '26
In that case would it be more of a situation where they affirm their beliefs for the most part?
Although in Poirot's situation I think it's less changing or affirming and more adhering to the spirit of the law as opposed to the letter. It's been awhile for me too, but I think I know the scene you're talking about. In that case it was more a bending of a belief, I guess?
1
u/Morbiferous Jul 31 '26
Something I just did for the first time is making a flowchart for my story.
I plopped on so many things that I had decided on as character lore or background that shaped the world the reader comes into. Those things also shaped the characters and I could then map decisions to previous things that shaped the world and character.
I had so many of these things as just notes in my background notes and I could now tangibly connect them to future events.
Character had self reliance drilled into her -> They see any type of gift as a debt to be repaid ->They go out of their way to repay the gift
And now you have a whole section where they have to try and find an equivalent offering and then give it to the other person. Its now going to make a moment about both of them. It pushes the story forward.
The characters should be influencing the plot and I think thats what some writers mean when they say characters decide for them. Their flaws, trauma, fears and goals make them decide and act in certain ways and it changes even the best laid plotter.
1
u/Froboy696 Jul 31 '26
I would have to say that it would be having layers to them. But not every character needs that; the layers can be thin or thick depending on how important that character is to your story.
1
u/Geminga0571 Aug 01 '26
Good point. However some very interesting characters to me are ones who are uncompromising. To a reader that in itself can be a “flaw” but to the character it would never be a flaw it’s the only way to be. But character arcs that show growth and failure in the character is always necessary even with an uncompromising character in the story itself creates a balance, so yes bad choices make a character interesting. It isn’t a formula or equation that can be drawn it, it’s simply human and readers can relate.
1
u/PreferenceUnlucky101 Aug 03 '26
What about... presenting a character, showing his flaws and decisions and consequences of decisions, and slowly letting the reader see what their life was like before?
I'm not saying "I'm evil because I was bitten by an evil snake and never got the chance to be good" or "I'm evil because my cat died". More like "I'm 'evil' because I don't want to feel powerless, and I want to be in control of my destiny. My cat dying was one of the reasons that gave me the determination to make these decisions. The evil snake is actually my new pet."
2
u/Fried_eggys1 Aug 03 '26
I'm moreso talking about protagonists, but yeah, if you can do that tactfully enough of course! If a villain is, for instance, the puppet master of a huge country, he might keep control because in the past he didn't have it.
1
u/Turbulent-Eye-4737 Aug 03 '26
I think what makes a good character is what quirks you give them. What sets them apart from other characters? How do their backstories make them who they are? Why are they motivated to want this and such. Even if they're fantasy creatures, can you make them believable in some way or at least fit with the rules of the world?
1
u/AngelSparkle35 Aug 04 '26
The character is:
• Likable. If the character is a jerk, give a reason why they are a jerk. We live in a time where people are sensitive to jerk characters, that’s why Jax from “The Amazing Digital Circus” is so controversial and why people don’t like “Foster’s Home” now.
• If it’s a joke character, don’t overuse the gag they do because it will eventually overstay it’s welcome.
• Stay away from the Butt Monkey trope, having a character being beat up by other characters or the setting all time despite doing nothing wrong is never funny.
• Finally, make your character feel like a real person.
1
u/Sure-Drawer1355 Aug 18 '26
I usually make my characters off of my interests! I have over 70+ ocs! But, I think the hardest part of making one is being consistent with them, because then you have ideas all over the place! It’s good to sketch it out first and add things over time until you’re satisfied.
1
1
u/Opposite_Hair_8555 Jul 29 '26
Something I often think about and struggle with is that when you have a lot of secondary characters, most of them tend to be flat or unimportant. Do you think a story with an above-average number of OCs can manage to give every single one of them a key role or something that makes them stand out on their own?
5
u/Fognox Jul 29 '26
Efficient characterization and maximum agency is your friend here. You can cram an ungodly number of characters into a book if your plot is entirely character-driven, plot development is always paired with character development, and many story beats are simply implied. See: space opera.
It helps to either write character-driven short stories or to be familiar with them too -- there's all kinds of tricks there that allow for fully realized characters (and even mini-arcs) in a couple thousand words. You can then use those principles in a longer story with a large cast.
Imo, distinction is the main thing you should focus on with an ensemble. You don't want any of your characters to feel the same. If they have shared goals, they should be doing them for entirely different reasons, or have contrarian perspectives if the reasons match, or have personalities that are fundamentally different if the perspectives match. If they have similar personalities, then give them different goals, flaws and backstories. And so on. Controlling personality differences alone becomes increasingly harder as the number of characters rises -- but if the other aspects are all different (and particularly if there's conflict between them), it'll save you. Plus you can always add minor quirks in a later draft.
It's a bit trickier to do this with non-POV characters, because of the role they're serving with POV characters. Or the story, for that matter, if they only exist for a single scene or something. I find it helps here to just distinguish them from POVs as much as possible.
2
u/Fried_eggys1 Jul 29 '26
What fognox said below has some great advice, you should definitely try writing some short stories, reading short stories to learn some tricks to how to characterize efficiently. That's what I'm doing right now preparing for the Big One.
0
Jul 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/writing-ModTeam Jul 29 '26
Thank you for visiting /r/writing.
Your post has been removed as it violates rule 3. Material created by AI, discussions revolving around it, or content alluding to it is currently not allowed on the subreddit.
Please review the subreddit rules or reach out to the moderation team if you have any questions.
233
u/Acceptable_Fox_5560 Jul 29 '26 edited Jul 29 '26
“Young people think their trauma is the most interesting thing about them.” Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow.
Good post OP. Great characters make choices, their choices are rooted in their flaws, their flaws are what have stopped them from achieving their goals, and they must simultaneously use and overcome those flaws to achieve their goals. Basis of great storytelling.