# Believable characters



## M. LeRenard (May 1, 2008)

I'm bored, so I'm going to write another one of these long-winded essay-type threads.
I think we should discuss what makes characters in fiction 'believable'.  To make this more interactive, though, I'll leave open the option to post a description of your own characters and explain what makes them interesting and realistic.  You know.. if you want to.  Indulge your pride in your creations a little bit.

Now... let's start, as always (and as is quite popular these days) with the problem of the 'Mary-Sue' character.  While it's pretty much universally agreed that this kind of character (the term for which came from a joke character written for a Star-Trek fanfiction, in order to make fun of such characters) is to be avoided at all costs, and while it's been discussed to death on every writing forum on the internet, it's useful to know just what it is about this kind of character that people don't like.
To put it bluntly, since this is an old topic after all, they're one-dimensional.  That dimension, of course, is the dimension of perfect; everyone who's good loves them unconditionally, everyone who's bad hates them unconditionally, and nothing ever goes wrong for them.  
But is that it?  Is it just that they're so cool it's unrealistic?
I would say no, in fact.  A character who's perfect in every way can still be a likable character.  Look at Superman; absurd physical prowess, a sense of justice strong enough to break a boulder, loved by everyone the world over (save Lex Luthor and other evil-doers), etc.  Every single Mary-Sue trait you can think of.  But people like him, and even continue making movies about him.  So why?

Because he also has a natural personality.  In other words, unlike the unlikable types of Mary-Sues, his personality isn't there just to serve some kind of purpose in the story.  It's not imposed; it follows logically from what he is, who he is, who he knows, and everything in the world that could shape how a person acts.  He falls in love with someone; not the other way around, and as such he makes mistakes in his relationship with her.  His past catches up with him, and so an insatiable curiosity takes over and causes him to leave behind all of his responsibilities.  Et cetera.

In other words, a believable character is actually a pretty simple concept; it's a character that acts like a real person would given the situation.  Someone who's consistent (but dynamic), has unique characteristics (that one's important), and reacts logically to situations.

I say simple, but it is and it isn't.  For instance, what do I mean by consistent but dynamic?  To keep from picking on _Eragon_ again, I'm going to take another sub-par fantasy as an example: The Wheel of Time.  I'll take two characters from here to illustrate how it's easy to tip too far one way or the other.
First case: Matrim.  He's introduced to us as a gambling, womanizing, partying kind of guy.  A very free spirit, of course.  He keeps this personality throughout most all of the books, despite a number of women he meets who he could easily have settled down with.  The only women he encounters who he actually spends a lot of time with, in fact, are beastly dominatrixes who constantly use every chance they get to embarrass or otherwise humiliate him.  Now, for such a free spirit, who obviously sees woman as not much more than objects most of the time, you'd think such an experience would make him fairly resentful of the opposite sex.  I could easily see him forsaking the concept of love and being done with it.
But does he?  Of course not.  In fact, he falls into an absurdly loyal love relationship with exactly the kind of dominatrix who had just gotten done humiliating him.  And considering that he only met her by taking her prisoner, she even has a sort of enmity for him, making her even more cruel towards him.  But he sticks with her like flypaper to cotton.
This is an example of a character who completely changes personality simply to fulfill the author's need for a certain something to happen (every other male character earns themselves such a relationship, as well; that being the case, of course Mat had to).  In this case, it would be much more believable if he'd have remained a womanizer and never fallen in any kind of love relationship.  Consistency here is the way to go.
In the opposite case, then... well, is all of the Forsaken.  Each one of these characters suffers from the 'generic bad guy' syndrome; long ago, they gave up their souls to some evil entity, and live only to serve it.  As such, everything about them is bad and evil.  They fight amongst themselves out of jealousy, they despise the main characters of the series, they don't hesitate to use torture, etc. to get what they want.
And no matter what happens, no matter how often they lose battles or are thwarted or whatever, they don't change one iota.  They're still just the evil baddies who support their lord and master.  Now, if some of them were like this, it'd be fine; they did give their entire beings to this Dark One (or whatever he was called), after all.  But EVERY ONE of them is like this; that's the problem.  Not one of them ever questions the side they chose to be on, their path in life, etc.  Not even a hint of it.
Here's where consistency is a problem; sometimes, events have effects on people, change them and their outlook on life.  You lose forty battles, you start to wonder if maybe it'd be better to join the other side.  Simple logic, there, which is completely overlooked in this series.

So you've got to have a balance.  Only robots always act the same way their whole lives, but on the other hand, people don't just reverse their ideologies on a whim either.

I guess the main point of this is that your characters shouldn't just be devices in your stories to move the plot forward or fulfill some nifty trick you want to happen in your narrative.  It's your job to take the characters you think of and put them in a situation for them to get through. If you're doing it wrong, you'll find that your hand is still firmly grasping your main character's at the end of the work, and your readers will be able to see it.


This post was just about making 'believable' characters.  That's just one aspect of it, though; if someone also wants to discuss how to make 'interesting' characters as well, that's a whole other topic.  Anyway, rebuttals, agreements, additions, or if anyone wants to tell me how dense and boring I am, the floor's open.


----------



## Hakumei Ookami (May 2, 2008)

When I write about a character, I tend to try and steer as far away as possible as the â€œstock charactersâ€ of so many pieces of fiction you see around the place. It's all too easy to write about the swave, debonair Englishman who shies away from the nitty-gritty of life and comes across as a bit of a pansy, but when push comes to shove he comes through with great bravery. Or the kooky, _interesting_ girl who is overshadowed by the cooler ones but ends up getting the guy.

It's clichÃ©. So? Well, it's not _your_ story, if it's clichÃ©. To make it your own, you've got to put a bit of you in the story. Sometimes, you've got to admit that you can't just magically write different to the rest because that's what you've grown up with. What I suggest is you take this, and make it flawed.

Say, the hero in a story suddenly ends up being beaten down by his own self-defeating prophecy, one who makes mistakes, one with secrets that don't reveal themselves on purpose. A hero is never, _never_ pre-destined to win. A hero is almost always the hero by accident. They don't have amazing abilities to thwart the opposition, or a heart of gold, or anything of the sort. They're human. And so is the opposition.

Indeed, does a story need opposition at all? Perhaps, but the opposition need not be clearly the opposition. The world's not black and white, and if you show this through your own writing you've already started to become much more of a realistic writer.


----------



## twilightiger (May 3, 2008)

Flaws! That's what makes a character believable. At the heart of every great hero is his weakness. Since conflict is the essence of a good story every character should have some kind of flaw. To quote Voltaire: We envy those of good fortune, which rapidly turns to sympathy for those without. 

A reson detre (I have no idea how to add the accents) is always important. If you create a character who doesn't have a reason for his or her actions and simply goes along, guided by the hand of fate . . . they're going to end up as transparent as glass. (Why do I want to save the world again? Because it was prophesied? Isn't that code for "We can't do anything for ourselves")

Personal growth. That's a tricky one to pull off. A character who remains inflexible and never grows from experiencing things is destined to be forgotten. Of course, too much change is just as bad as too little, a person's core values almost never change after all. Its all about putting the right character in the right situation. And then turning them loose and watching them cause havoc.

Well those are definitely my top three picks for creating a believable character. I tend to add personalities later anyway.

As for my favorite character that I've ever come up with. I would have to pick 'King' from the first story I ever finished. King is unique in all the world because he alone is a hybrid. Living proof that the human and chimera races can interbreed. 
Chimera's are essentially engineered life forms that have their destiny decided for them at birth. But when King learns the circumstances of his own birth and his 'unique' existence he's forced to make a choice. Defy the destiny decided for him and fight for the chance for chimera's to live their own live's. Or accept death simply because his continued existence is a threat to the carefully maintained lie of what chimera's really are. 
Along the way he delves into the world of midnight and begins walking a fine line between the so called world of light, and the shadowy existence of the criminal underworld. 
That said he's more of a villain than a hero in my eyes. He loves playing cat and mouse with his rivals, psychological warfare is his stock and trade, and he begins manipulating events from behind the scenes to create the world that he desires. He's sort of like the furry equivalent of a James Bond villain. Only he gets to win.


----------



## M. LeRenard (May 3, 2008)

> That said he's more of a villain than a hero in my eyes. He loves playing cat and mouse with his rivals, psychological warfare is his stock and trade, and he begins manipulating events from behind the scenes to create the world that he desires. He's sort of like the furry equivalent of a James Bond villain. Only he gets to win.


Kind of similar to my MC.  I think anti-heroes are popular these days.


----------



## Clothoverlord (May 3, 2008)

I find the best way to make my chracters believable is to make them contridictory.  Nothing in real life is simple so a well thought up fictional character shouldn't be simple either; they shouldn't be able to be summed up in one neat concise sentence that explains every single one of their actions and motives because none of us are like that.  We're a bunch of competing demands and ideas that are all fighting with each other.  

It can be hard to make this work because if not done well making contridictions will just end up confusing the reader (although sometimes that may temporarily be the point with some authors), and it has to be done balanced and with consideration; each trait you add to a character is another potential contridiction that must be balanced against every single other trait you've written for them.  But when it's done right the character just runs off with a life of their own and their competing values and ideas actually enhance them in a way that's just not possible otherwise.


----------



## ToeClaws (Jul 5, 2008)

Believable characters for me involves much of what's said already - flaws, common every day behaviours, and of course depth.  When I write a story, even if it the story is yiffy, there is a great deal "story" to go with it.  I like the reader to be able to get to know the characters because as the tale goes on, it lets the reader appreciate them from a higher understanding, thus any scene, including yiff, is something that takes on more meaning.

It's often the little details and moments, quick and simple, that make a character realistic.


----------



## WhiteHowl (Jul 6, 2008)

A character becomes more believable when he fails. I guess failures (and I say failures not flaws) can be considered plot devices, but then again they are awesome plot devices. I mean what do you get when a character fails to do something? We get pain, we get introspection, we get to see that the character really isn't perfect, and most of all we get to see genuine pain- that character can feel pain, and that he/she does make mistakes.


----------



## makmakmob (Jul 8, 2008)

Would it be OK for individuals to use this opportunity to have their characters critiqued?
EDIT: namely me.


----------



## Oddeye (Jul 8, 2008)

On the other hand, a charater, who keeps failing, the very emo type of character and so, those are not belivable either. Life is ups and downs, but if it's all downs, and the character really hates him or herself, then there is no fun about him/her. But is, as earlier mentioned, there is a growth, something that makes the character think better of themselves, and get them out of the state of self hate, even if it's only temporary, then it's a nice, belivable character too, in my opinion.
Take my main character for example.
He started out as this very emo guy, cutting, drinking, taking pills and so on, trying to kill himself, because he really hated being alive. As I played with him, he grew from that, into one of my most loved characters. He still tends to fall back into self destructive behaviour, when he is stressed and depressed, but he doesn't stay there. So, character growth...

And, I guess we could 'rate'/take a look on your character, Mak. Or, i'll give it a try, at least.


----------



## Vrghr (Jul 16, 2008)

Believable characters, to this wuff, stem from two primary traits:

First, they are not immutable, unchanging robots. Unless, of course, they ARE a robot *grins* But I would put those in the category of â€œapplianceâ€ rather than character. Artificial Intelligence (AI) equipped â€˜bots, however, come under the heading of â€œcharacterâ€ and I would expect them to evolve just as any flesh and blood being would.

A character learns from their experiences; they change not only tactics and opinions, but possibly even their philosophy if the event was epiphanous. It may be difficult to show macro change within the context of a short story, but the micro occurrences are still expected. For instance, within the space of a conversation with a stranger, does the character begin to form an opinion of the stranger, grow more comfortable in their presence, more suspicious, more fearful, more affectionate?

Second, a story does things in accordance with plot, but a character does things due to motivation. It links to the first point, but goes even deeper. WHY does the character react as they do? What are their reasons, their urges, their goal? Sometimes the characters themselves might not be fully aware of subconscious or other such motivation, but the author must be!  The author has got to have a reason for the character to perform in a particular fashion, and that doesn't mean simply that the plot demands a certain act at a certain point.

These underlying reasons are what change a character from a puppet into a believable being.  And having a character suddenly change their actions in violation of these supportive frameworks â€œbreaksâ€ the character in this wuffâ€™s mind as surely as snapping their skeleton breaks their body.


----------



## Clyde_Dale (Jul 16, 2008)

One of the things I do with potential Mary Sue characters is show the disadvantages to their advantages.

Take, for example, one of the characters I'm writing about now. He's completely immune to magic in a high-magic society. Not just immune, he's a magical black hole, absorbing any and all magic around him. Not only that, but he's fully as strong as any demon, and was pretty much augmented to be able to take on whatever supernatural thing goes bump in the night. He's got extensive martial arts training, fairly smart about squad and large-scale tactics and overall strategy, and in general, an okay kind of guy.

Sounds like a real one-dimensional character, right? Got a bunch of cliche's in there, the Supersoldier Project, Sole Survivor complex, sounds like a real Mary Sue.

So, how does this present himself as a disadvantage?

Well, first off, he's a magical black hole in a high-magic civilization. It's like not only unable to use any technology, from toaster ovens to cars to computers, but making them break or stop functioning just by touching them. That is... crippling. He literally cannot function in that society at large, he's completely dependent on his military unit to help him survive, and the military makes a BUNCH of concessions just so that he can still function.

Second off, he's scary. I know, that doesn't sound like a disadvantage, but here's the angle I play on him. He's a soldier, his job is to go toe to toe with the worst supernatural threats there are, simply because conventional forces cannot effectively face them. So, he gets sent out to go kill, for example, some demon lord who is terrorizing the countryside. So he tracks the thing down, kills it, then turns around to see the commoners look at him in fear and horror. Rather than applaud him for saving them, they're even more horrified of him than of the demon he just killed, because he was able to kill it. It's not rational, but it is an extremely common reaction among 'follower' mentalities. How would you react if you came out, risked your life to save them, only to be shunned and feared? Sucks, don't it?

Here's another problem for this guy: Not all the bad guys look like bad guys. Seriously, he has to deal with some villians that really love to play mind-games. Vamps who look like cute little 8 year old girls but are really hundreds of years old have already been done, but how about a master vampire using the entire town's population of women and children as a living shield against him? If he doesn't go through them, the vamp gets to take off and start over somewhere else... again. Moral conumdrums are always good ways of screwing over supposedly 'perfect' heros. Heck, that's the main thing that Lex Luthor did to Superman. Lex knew he couldn't beat Boy Blue in a fair fight. That's why he never brought a fair fight. And Sup's very moral code was used against him on more than one occasion.

So really, even a supposedly 'perfect' character can have serious obstacles to overcome if you look at it in the right way. If your main character is able to plow through everything, look at the character from the point of view of someone who wants to screw him over and beat him, look for exploitable weaknesses, then exploit the heck out of them. It makes for a more interesting read, and I find it more fun to write about.


----------



## Ecs Wolfie (Jul 23, 2008)

Well, For my characters in most of my stories, I try to keep them as natural as possible aside from certain physical traits. Heck, I'm actually trying to write a story that has a 'silent hill vibe' (Not my quote but a friends) but plays off of everyone's weaknesses/phobias so I'm having to write not only believable characters but I have to get their reactions to the phobias right.

One character, For example, Is one of those i'm tough in the face of danger but no one can keep that up for more then a few hours in a extreme horror situation. I'm talking about a 'normal' person and also getting faced with their worse fears, Yes usually they'd start to get a little less scared after a while but that can only work with some people. Not everyone can go and face their fears right on.

So Mary-Sue type characters? I've never actually made one before, All of my characters have flaws because no ones perfect. I'm betting that at least one of them have at least one Mary-Sue trait but I just can't point it out right now.


----------



## makmakmob (Jul 31, 2008)

One thing I've _tried_ to do with characters is ensure that they always have elements to their personality or philosophy that I think are ass-wipey as not to make me favor them. Don't know if that would actually help...


----------



## Nargle (Aug 11, 2008)

Hmm, everybody keeps saying "Give them flaws!" And that may seem like a reliable formula, but because of this, I've much too often run into Mary Sues/Marty Stus that are like, in reverse. 

I'm talking about characters that have weaknesses, and they flaunt it, just to like.. show off that they're a creative character. Like:

Bad past
Mental turmoil
Physical injury/scars
Trouble with love life
Unstable emotional state
Something inhibiting them like a phobia or bad past experience
etc. etc. etc.

It just seems that everyone sprinkles in one of those into their characters to make them "original," yet they end up just following another formula. 

In my opinion, flaws are NOT the answer. If you want a believable character, look at real life. Just like great artists study from real models and not "How to draw Manga" books, a great writer shouldn't follow a formula, but instead base characters off of real observations. Real life characters aren't perfect, yet they aren't riddled with stereotypical flaws that every good guy has. 

Take for example, I have a Redwall based squirrel character. She's mostly modeled after me, but I wasn't my only influence. And since she is modeled after someone real, she has a healthy blend of pros and cons. Pros: She's wise, mellow, cheerful, friendly, always ready for adventure, doles out advice on a regular basis, accurate with a short bow, and has a quirky addiction to sweets. Cons: She hates kids, gets tied up in social situations sometimes, has the same sorts of fears that I do (Losing loved ones; small, tight spaces), has bad joints, her vision is fading so her accuracy has dropped, and can be aloof and unable to think of something to say to strangers. See, those are normal flaws. No crippling disability or traumatic past. My parents weren't killed by demons and I wasn't betrayed savagely by every lover. And sometimes it's good to have your pros outweigh the cons, so you can make your character lovable, instead of some wayward adventurer you can't help but pity. Like, my favorite character out of any book has got to be Atticus from To Kill a Mockingbird. He was just.. if I were to meet him in real life, I would admire him. He wasn't an alcoholic pining about the loss of his wife, pushed over the edge by the stress of this court case, much less raising two kids. No, instead, he sucked it up, and handled everything like a man, even a gentleman. He never shows his worry to his kids, and whenever there is a problem, he knows just what to do. Hell, he could even tactfully explain what rape was to his little daughter, completely avoiding any awkwarness! 

Oh, and one more thing- The description you give your character doesn't make him interesting/unique/creative... it's what you have him DO that makes him worth reading about.

So yeah, that's my take on the whole issue n.n


----------



## TakeWalker (Aug 12, 2008)

Nargle said:


> lots of good things



Basically, I agree. :3 This is what needed to be posted when this thread began.


----------



## Nargle (Aug 12, 2008)

**Just spent the past few minutes trying to figure out where I said "lots of good things," and why you agree to that little statement** XD Ah, silly me!

That's cool we agree, though =D


----------



## Narffet (Aug 12, 2008)

Flaws, failures, backstory, good. Though something to like about them never hurts, even if you love to hate them (in case of villains or what have you).

An easy way to break from a 'Mary Sue' character is one simple step, as illustrated in Galaxy Quest -- give the character a _last name_.

And don't stop there -- give them quirks, round them out. Foods they like/don't like, superstitions, fears, hopes, dreams, style of clothing (if you vary it), bad habits, addictions, temptations, name of a pet they had when they were a kid.

Most of the points made are valid -- conflicted, contradictory, ect. and so on. Though make sure there's a (good) reason though; it needs to fit and make sense. A character who suddenly changes for no explained reason can actually cheapen and flatten the image -- they've simply become a 2 dimensional plot device. See the last 4 episodes of Wolf's Rain for a perfect example n.n;;


----------



## Shouden (Aug 18, 2008)

It should be noted, as well, in terms of consistency even, that your characters should have character and a personality of their own. It can be easy to have multiple characters with similar personalities and that is okay if it is like one or two characters, but if you have 20 characters that behave the same way,  it gets unbelievable. Also, be consistent with the personalities as well. Normal people don't change the way the behave or act randomly, and neither should your characters unless there is some significant event in their lives (i.e. a love one dies or they have a near death experience, etc.)

Also, different people react to the same situations in different ways. Example: I am working on a story of that tells of two sisters who were both molested, abused and raped by their father, one grows to despise men and actually becomes a little insane and  homicidal, while the other one just keeps on going through life with a lot of hope and courage and a faithful friend at her side, but becomes suicidal later in her life.

How they react to a situation depends on their personality, and their decisions should reflect their personalities.

Be careful to ask let your character be themselves, and get to know your characters.  I have found that after a while, they tend to develop minds of their own, and when they do, they can learn, and think and react to their environment more realistically.

Anyways,  those are my two cents.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Sep 27, 2008)

I just recently read an essay about 'flat' versus 'round' characters.  Basically, the idea was that 'flat' characters are characters you can describe in one sentence, and that they never flag from that description no matter what happens.  The difference between interesting flat characters and not so interesting ones, then, is simply which sentence describes them.  For example, someone who could be described by this sentence: "I will always get up at 5:00 AM to tend to my crops", isn't nearly as interesting as this one: "I must defend the King, no matter the circumstances!"  They're not exactly real people, but they are still likable in that the reader always knows how they're going to act, and thus they can serve as an interesting obstacle/companion/comic relief kind of character.  They're very memorable simply as themselves (think of Gollum: he's pretty flat, and everyone knows who he is because he's so hard to forget).
Round characters were described as being characters that are flat, but have the ability to change based on the circumstances.  As such, you could describe a round character in one sentence, but it won't always apply.  Round characters are much more memorable through the circumstances that change them, rather than as themselves.  And in order for a round character to be believable (in other words, not just a flat character masquerading as a round character), the kinds of changes he goes through must make sense based on the archetype flat character that lies underneath him.  In other words, it would take some rather extreme circumstances for a person who believes strongly in charity to suddenly beat the crap out of a hobo and steal all of his clothing; if a character just does whatever, because that might be what is most convenient for the character to do in order to progress the story the way the author wants, that's a flat character in disguise.

Thoughts on this?  Flat characters could perhaps be quite believable, after all, depending on how they're used, it seems.


----------



## Xipoid (Sep 27, 2008)

M. Le Renard said:


> I just recently read an essay about 'flat' versus 'round' characters.  Basically, the idea was that 'flat' characters are characters you can describe in one sentence, and that they never flag from that description no matter what happens.  The difference between interesting flat characters and not so interesting ones, then, is simply which sentence describes them.  For example, someone who could be described by this sentence: "I will always get up at 5:00 AM to tend to my crops", isn't nearly as interesting as this one: "I must defend the King, no matter the circumstances!"  They're not exactly real people, but they are still likable in that the reader always knows how they're going to act, and thus they can serve as an interesting obstacle/companion/comic relief kind of character.  They're very memorable simply as themselves (think of Gollum: he's pretty flat, and everyone knows who he is because he's so hard to forget).
> Round characters were described as being characters that are flat, but have the ability to change based on the circumstances.  As such, you could describe a round character in one sentence, but it won't always apply.  Round characters are much more memorable through the circumstances that change them, rather than as themselves.  And in order for a round character to be believable (in other words, not just a flat character masquerading as a round character), the kinds of changes he goes through must make sense based on the archetype flat character that lies underneath him.  In other words, it would take some rather extreme circumstances for a person who believes strongly in charity to suddenly beat the crap out of a hobo and steal all of his clothing; if a character just does whatever, because that might be what is most convenient for the character to do in order to progress the story the way the author wants, that's a flat character in disguise.
> 
> Thoughts on this?  Flat characters could perhaps be quite believable, after all, depending on how they're used, it seems.



That seems like a pretty good summation if you ask me.


I do think flat characters can be believable where, as you put it, the sentence used is at least logical. Really it all depends on how the character fits into the story as a whole, flat or not.


----------



## sashadistan (Oct 29, 2008)

I think nearly every character I have ever written is based in some way, off of the people who I know; whether it's their way of speaking, their body language, physical image. Anything.
I really think it's one of the best ways to create genuine characters.

There is of course the theory that every character and every story is based from six/seven standard plots and the characters in them. But then, I hate that theory.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Oct 29, 2008)

> I think nearly every character I have ever written is based in some way, off of the people who I know; whether it's their way of speaking, their body language, physical image. Anything.
> I really think it's one of the best ways to create genuine characters.


It is... but be careful.  People have actually been sued because their characters resembled too closely a real person they were acquainted with (the character was generally shown in a not-so-flattering light, so the basis for the court action was slander).  I think as long as you don't base a character off of your ex-girlfriend Amy, call her Aimee in the book, and then have her get run over by a semi, you should be fine, though.


----------



## MichaelOlnet (Dec 6, 2008)

The way I create my characters, I love to start by making their flaws first. I let the flaw take life, and just watch as it sort of shatters the plane of glass that is the character. You know, when you throw a baseball at a very thick piece of glass, and it doesn't completely fall to pieces, you're left with a widely damaged area where many different cracks spider their way outward from the point of impact. Those flaws, however weakening the character on those points and the points nearby, the other parts of the glass are slightly stronger, and thus the strengths jump out at me. Once I see these two factors, all I need to do is step away, and my mind brings out the shape and color of the character, and I fill it in with a fun element here, a immersive element there, and then I go searching for the world.

I think the key here, actually, in the fight for believable and rounded characters is an author who refuses to let the story, the world, or popular demand (aka nudity, sex what have you) completely dominate his or her writing. The Wheel of Time (a story I'm glad to see brought to light by someone else) is, in my opinion, an example of neglect to the characters...jagged turns dictated purely by the storyline imagined by the author ahead of time.  If you're able to break free from these tempting constraints, then your characters have more room to round themselves and become able to establish connections with the reader. Not to say that environment, story, and popular elements aren't important, of course. (Well, possibly not the third, but I'd claim to succumbing to that.) It's just the art of balance once again.

To me, another example of this domination, this time with the environment, is The Lord of the Rings. Of course, this is an unfair accusation given the fact that TLotR is actually, in fact, an epic and can only be fairly judged as such. Taken as an actual story, or as fiction for entertainment, however, the environment and deep history Tolkien wove for his world since its beginnings with the scrawlings "in a hole there lived a hobbit" and the strange, fantastical mythology and weavings of the The Silmarillion draw away from the characters, the story, and what else. Although his masterful weavings of the world draws us in, it is hard to find truly honest moments where we can connect to the characters. Then again, as I've said before, TLotR was written after the style of epic, so connective characters weren't exactly a part of the equation. (If anyone connected with the hero Beowulf, my deepest appologies.)

That being said, if your character you believe is made complete and good in the eyes of its creator, then maybe you should ask yourself whether your balance is good or not.

Sorry if this is an old thread, but M. Le Renard's posts are really thought inducing, and I felt the need to share my view on this topic.


----------



## Art Vulpine (Dec 6, 2008)

I'm always hooked to characters who are neither good nor evil but are somewhere in the grey area. Too  many time have I read about valliant knights or evil necromancers. This is not real! The world is not that black and white. So I like characters with some grey. Like a valliant knight who is trying to attone for accidentially killng a child when trying to stop a murderer. Or a sorcerer whose magical mistake caused him to go mental. Or a necromancer whose love of his life died and wants to fight against death itself by reanimating dead loved ones so they can return to their families.

I like Harry Potter because of this. The first books I ad mit seem black and white, but as you go through the series you find that there is alot of hidden stuff that makes you change your opinions on the characters. Even Voldemort, the big bad evil began as an average person and became evil. 

The other thing I dislike are sterotypical evil characters who are evil for no reason. There needs to be a reason why a person is evil.

I also like characters who don't get what they want. Too often you have fairytale stories where the main character gets what he/she wants and lives happily ever after. That's not real! You need characters who have to fight to get what they want, or even characters who never get what they want.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Dec 6, 2008)

Hmmm... I beg to differ concerning the Lord of the Rings, but it has been a while since I read it, and the movies don't count.  Beowulf, though... there's just not much to him, really.  Probably because it was written (or orated, or whatever) during a time when ideas were much more important than characters and personalities.  Having personable characters is a pretty new idea (might have started in the 19th century, with the shift in focus from prominent personages to laymen in artwork and literature).  But that's a whole other thread.



> The other thing I dislike are sterotypical evil characters who are evil for no reason. There needs to be a reason why a person is evil.


*cough* Galbatorix *cough*
Oh, excuse me.  In any case, while it is a good point that gray areas make a character more believable, it is possible to have a believable character who is completely one way or the other, as long as you have some basis for having the character act in this way (kind of as you pointed out in some of your examples).  But without that reason, the character is no more than a symbol (think Howard Roark from The Fountainhead: he has literally zero personality outside of what Ayn Rand wanted his existence to prove, and so he comes across as very flat and uninteresting [one of the things I didn't like about that book]).
As so far as fairy tale ending are concerned, that's a bit grayer still, because every now and then something will happen in the real world that wouldn't be bought by a fiction reader.  And in such a case, what do you do?  So again, it comes down to the why and how of it; feels like it's always got to be the basis for something that's believable, even if the something itself isn't entirely so.


----------



## Poetigress (Dec 7, 2008)

Inari85 said:
			
		

> Too often you have fairytale stories where the main character gets what he/she wants and lives happily ever after. That's not real! You need characters who have to fight to get what they want, or even characters who never get what they want.



I do think characters should make things happen instead of having things handed to them, but I disagree with the implication that happy endings aren't "real."  It's fine to have a story where the lead doesn't get what he wants (and sometimes not getting what you want can actually be a positive thing), but I don't think that type of ending is automatically any more "real" than the character getting what they want.  

If I can't believably have a happy ending, I at least usually try to have some possibility of hope somewhere (one reason I don't write horror all that well).  

For those of us who are or will be submitting our work out to editors in the next couple of years, I think it's worth pointing out that people are likely to want to read stories that end well for a while.  When the real world is as bleak as it is right now for so many, readers tend to turn more to escapist works that satisfy a need for reassurance, and give them a  sense that things will work out in the end, instead of some of the bleaker stuff that's been popular in the last several years.  Mind you, I'm not advocating tacking on a happy ending where it doesn't belong merely to sell a story, but it's just something to keep in mind.


----------



## Jax (Dec 7, 2008)

Poetigress said:


> I do think characters should make things happen instead of having things handed to them, but I disagree with the implication that happy endings aren't "real."  It's fine to have a story where the lead doesn't get what he wants (and sometimes not getting what you want can actually be a positive thing), but I don't think that type of ending is automatically any more "real" than the character getting what they want.
> 
> If I can't believably have a happy ending, I at least usually try to have some possibility of hope somewhere (one reason I don't write horror all that well).
> 
> For those of us who are or will be submitting our work out to editors in the next couple of years, I think it's worth pointing out that people are likely to want to read stories that end well for a while.  When the real world is as bleak as it is right now for so many, readers tend to turn more to escapist works that satisfy a need for reassurance, and give them a  sense that things will work out in the end, instead of some of the bleaker stuff that's been popular in the last several years.  Mind you, I'm not advocating tacking on a happy ending where it doesn't belong merely to sell a story, but it's just something to keep in mind.



Quite true. My characters have to struggle again and again. Life is like that. They just sometimes manage to win. I write in episodes, thus there are times when every thing goes wrong. I do not think it would make for good reading to just leave them with failure and never taste a reward. Most readers do want an escape. Don't give the character the world on a silver platter...this seldom happens in real life. Do give them something to hope for. I base much of my characters' lives on real events, real experiences. Not everything is sweet and pretty...but in the end, most find hope.


----------



## ironwolf85 (Dec 10, 2008)

got a guy with a good background from life to death. Most of his military career he ends up getting the short end of the stick. As he the story goes on he changes, grows, going from a coward to a powerful political and military leader.
I put him through so much stuff to get there though, a real hero (which I planned him to be) is the guy who stands up, it just took him a while.
this is a guy who I have witness terrible terrible things, he may be a high ranking member of the military but he's got a serious case of nightmares. it's how he deals with these thing as he develops that's interesting.
could've gone on longer but I'm tired


----------



## hara-surya (Dec 11, 2008)

I've been known to balance characters by making character sheets for them using the RPG GURPS.  The game pretty much forces you to add Disadvantages to a character in order to help balance out the character overall.  (A "default" is 150 points, with -75 in Disadvantages and -5 in Quirks.)  The game is designed like that to help ward off "Muchnkinism", but has the nice side effect of making the character more realistic.

Mind you, I typically only make a character sheet once I've defined them well enough in my own head to allow me to be able to do that, so I might have invested months to years in developing the character on paper in order to get to that point.


----------



## SVelasquez (Feb 15, 2009)

Personally, I think that a believable character is one that has depth and flaws. You also want one that has unique redeeming qualities as well to balance out some of the flaws, however the goal isn't to create the perfect character.

An easy way to make a character more believable--or, at the very least, well-rounded--is to have him or her in an environment or in an array of characters where unique character traits are apparent.

One example is of the characters in my first novel (which is still being written). The array of characters isn't unique as they're all NYPD street cops. However, in the mix are some unique traits that make each character believable. The biggest contrast is that of the sergeant and one of the officers. The sergeant has a daughter who's a teenager. During the novel, she gets into trouble at school and needs help after punching a student who was threatening her. The sergeant, being her father took the call and helped her (she hadn't done anything legally wrong to start with, but technically it was assault). 

On the other hand, the officer, who doesn't have kids, but is the godfather of his nephew, probably wouldn't have readily helped the teen. This is demonstrated when his nephew is picked up on possible possession charges. In a situation where the sergeant would have demanded they tested the evidence to be sure it was positive, the officer instead scolded his nephew before telling him to be thankful that the evidence turned out to be bunk. He, unlike the sergeant, just sat back and took a passive role in the case.

That's one way for the characters to be believable--not every character who has taken care of a kid or looked after a teen handles situations the same way.


----------



## Murphy Z (May 21, 2009)

For a specific unbelievableness, especially in fantasy stories, just read when the main character goes around killing dozens of some monster race before noon even. The character superhumanly dispatches with them. Also on the flipside, how can a race of monsters survive when they're killed like that by adventurerers? No race breeds that fast. It's very boring and unbelievable.


----------



## greymist (May 23, 2009)

I find it easiest to base character personalities off people I know in real life.  Some of my characters even have a blend of traits from multiple people.

The hardest part is researching the cultural background of the individual characters, and then trying to intergrate a personality into them that does not conflict with the cultural background.

Does that make sense?
I think so.
I give up.

Grey


----------



## Iburnaga (Jul 21, 2009)

Perhaps we should have a character thread where we post character profiles for review?


----------



## M. LeRenard (Jul 21, 2009)

Go for it.


----------

