Writing Compelling Characters
I'm excited to particpate in The Great Blogging Experiment, brainchild of bloggers extraordinaire Elana Johnson, Alex J Cavanaugh and Jennifer Daiker. The experiment is simply this: a bunch of bloggers blog on the same exact topic on the same exact day---today! Will it be mass redundancy, or will we find each post insightful in it's own way, colored by each blogger's unique personality? We shall see. I'm betting on the latter.
For a list of participants in The Great Blogging Experiment, click on the link to this post at Elana's blog and scroll down. Much thanks to Elana, Alex, and Jen for setting all of this up.
It's well established that fictional characters should have flaws. It makes them real and therefore relatable. And getting readers to relate to a character is imperative if the character is to be compelling. But even the flaws have to be done just right. If we don't follow certain guidelines, we'll end up with someone who is just as obnoxious, grating, and despicable as the all-too-perfect character. So I dedicate this post to adding my two cents on guidelines for "perfecting" flaws.
First: Don't overdo it. Just like no character should be all perfection, no character should be all flaw. Even the villains need some redeeming qualities.
Lord Voldemort (from the Harry Potter series for anyone who's new) was one of the most evil characters ever invented, but he had admirable qualities in his power, skill, intelligence, and leadership. It made his tyranny more tragic, because he could have done so much good with his assets.
Another nearly pure-evil character is Heathcliff from Wuthering Heights. His redeeming quality was his love for and allegiance to Catherine Earnshaw. Sure, this love and devotion became a psychotic obsession that infected the lives of several innocent people, but the sentiment itself was nice.
Second: While small flaws are part of all of us and require no explanation, there has to be some kind of reasoning behind the larger flaws. Not that these reasons are an excuse for the behavior, but if the flaws can be understood, readers will sympathize.
Let's look at Severus Snape, one of my all time favorite characters (again from the Harry Potter series if you didn't know...where have you been?). He's a nasty, greasy-haired jerk-off through the entire series, but piece by piece we learn more about his sad, lonely childhood and his tortured teen years, and suddenly, icky old Professor Snape has an adoring fan base.
Third: The flaws have to at a minimum be acknowledged and preferably have consequences.
Scarlett O'Hara of Gone with the Wind fame was a horribly flawed individual---selfish, spoiled, conniving, disrespectful, stubborn---and that was acknowledged throughout the book by other characters and more importantly, by the author. The flaws were intentional and never defended or glossed over in the narrative. And boy, oh boy, did Scarlett have consequences to her pig-headed refusal to live life by anyone's rules but her own.
Now I get to vent a little and give you an example of a character that in my opinion was very poorly done---Bella Swan from the Twilight phenomenon. She described herself as plain and nothing special, but obviously was anything but because it seemed every male she came in contact with became immediately smitten with her and most of the the females wanted to be her BFF. As I read along in the series I realized how incredibly self-centered and false she was, and it nearly drove me insane. Then it hit me that this shouldn't bother me at all. Because I like flawed characters, right? And Bella had two big flaws that were entirely believable considering she was a teenager. So what was my problem?
Well, it turns out that it wasn't my problem at all. The problem was that no one ever acknowledged these flaws. Not one character and certainly not the author. Rosalie gave her a hard time, but it turned out that was only because she was jealous of Mary Sue, I mean Bella. As a matter of fact, when Bella's behavior was at its absolute worst, her vampire boyfriend jumped in to tell her how amazingly wonderful and unselfish she was. These flaws were not intended. They were the byproduct of a poorly developed character.
Were there consequences for her living her life so selfishly? That's a good one. Nope, she got to skip off under a nauseating rainbow into fairyland. Now, the series was and still is insanely popular, so obviously the author did something right. But writing a compelling main character was not it.
For a list of participants in The Great Blogging Experiment, click on the link to this post at Elana's blog and scroll down. Much thanks to Elana, Alex, and Jen for setting all of this up.
The topic: Writing Compelling Characters.
It's well established that fictional characters should have flaws. It makes them real and therefore relatable. And getting readers to relate to a character is imperative if the character is to be compelling. But even the flaws have to be done just right. If we don't follow certain guidelines, we'll end up with someone who is just as obnoxious, grating, and despicable as the all-too-perfect character. So I dedicate this post to adding my two cents on guidelines for "perfecting" flaws.
First: Don't overdo it. Just like no character should be all perfection, no character should be all flaw. Even the villains need some redeeming qualities.
Lord Voldemort (from the Harry Potter series for anyone who's new) was one of the most evil characters ever invented, but he had admirable qualities in his power, skill, intelligence, and leadership. It made his tyranny more tragic, because he could have done so much good with his assets.
Another nearly pure-evil character is Heathcliff from Wuthering Heights. His redeeming quality was his love for and allegiance to Catherine Earnshaw. Sure, this love and devotion became a psychotic obsession that infected the lives of several innocent people, but the sentiment itself was nice.
Second: While small flaws are part of all of us and require no explanation, there has to be some kind of reasoning behind the larger flaws. Not that these reasons are an excuse for the behavior, but if the flaws can be understood, readers will sympathize.
Let's look at Severus Snape, one of my all time favorite characters (again from the Harry Potter series if you didn't know...where have you been?). He's a nasty, greasy-haired jerk-off through the entire series, but piece by piece we learn more about his sad, lonely childhood and his tortured teen years, and suddenly, icky old Professor Snape has an adoring fan base.
Third: The flaws have to at a minimum be acknowledged and preferably have consequences.
Scarlett O'Hara of Gone with the Wind fame was a horribly flawed individual---selfish, spoiled, conniving, disrespectful, stubborn---and that was acknowledged throughout the book by other characters and more importantly, by the author. The flaws were intentional and never defended or glossed over in the narrative. And boy, oh boy, did Scarlett have consequences to her pig-headed refusal to live life by anyone's rules but her own.
Now I get to vent a little and give you an example of a character that in my opinion was very poorly done---Bella Swan from the Twilight phenomenon. She described herself as plain and nothing special, but obviously was anything but because it seemed every male she came in contact with became immediately smitten with her and most of the the females wanted to be her BFF. As I read along in the series I realized how incredibly self-centered and false she was, and it nearly drove me insane. Then it hit me that this shouldn't bother me at all. Because I like flawed characters, right? And Bella had two big flaws that were entirely believable considering she was a teenager. So what was my problem?
Well, it turns out that it wasn't my problem at all. The problem was that no one ever acknowledged these flaws. Not one character and certainly not the author. Rosalie gave her a hard time, but it turned out that was only because she was jealous of Mary Sue, I mean Bella. As a matter of fact, when Bella's behavior was at its absolute worst, her vampire boyfriend jumped in to tell her how amazingly wonderful and unselfish she was. These flaws were not intended. They were the byproduct of a poorly developed character.
Were there consequences for her living her life so selfishly? That's a good one. Nope, she got to skip off under a nauseating rainbow into fairyland. Now, the series was and still is insanely popular, so obviously the author did something right. But writing a compelling main character was not it.
Comments
J K Rowling seems to have appeared in a number of 'Great Blogging Experiment' posts today. Unsurprising really I suppose as she is one of the masters when it comes to creating believable three-dimensional characters!
Liz - Thanks! Yes, this is a cool idea for a blogfest, and now I'm kicking myself that I didn't do a small post to advertise it earlier in the week! But it looks like it's still open for anyone who wants to hop on at Elana's blog.
I've never watched Lost! But several friends have told me that I'd love it. Now that the series is done, perhaps I'll have to get all the seasons and have myself a marathon! (You know, with all that extra time. Ha)
Also, love the Docs and Chucks on your header. I was raised in the 8o's too. In fact, I wore my Smiths T-shirt yesterday. :)
I'm your newest follower and friend.
Happy Weekend,
Lola
Shallee - Thanks! Glad you found it helpful. Thank YOU for stopping by.
Lola - Aha, I see you have a thing for shoes. ;P Nothing like the 80s, ey? I'm so jealous of your Smith's T-shirt. Man, I was addicted to that band in college.
Lee
Tossing It Out
Your blog is very cool, btw!
Meredith - Hooray for Harry! Glad you agree with what I had to say about flaws. :)
Carolyn - Nice to know I gave you something to think about. It would be interesting to see how readers' reactions to Bella would've been different had she ever been called out on her flaws.
Alex - Yep. About the only wholly-crappy character I can stand is Bif from Back to the Future.
Yay! I'm so happy that you liked my post that much. :D Extra glad I made the effort to add the examples too since you think they fit so well.
Thanks for stopping by my "cool" blog. ;)
One of my FAVORITE things is when a perceived flaw turns out to be a strength--compassion saving an army, or 'hiding' putting a hero in the spot they can actually do the most good.
Loved all the examples you used! Don't tell my daughter I'm saying this (hard core fan) but I agree about Bella.
Kitty - Thanks for the real life example of perfection not ringing true. It's a poignant one.
Hart - Ooh yeah, that's great when a flaw surprises everyone and does some work. Snape is SUCH a wonderful, because I don't know that anyone ever likes him, but we are all so intrigued by him.
Melissa - Glad I could cover two of your favorite villains. :) Mine too. What's cool about this Experiment is that each of us are posting pieces of character development, and when we put them all together, we have it all!
Vicki - D'oh! Sorry about the word verification. I'm thinking about turning that off (assuming I can figure it out). Glad you like the examples, and I won't tell if you don't. ;)
Talei - The sparkly one pulled me in too. Not the love story, just the sparkly one, hehehe. You point out one thing that Meyer did well---make readers care enough about the characters to want to know how it all turned out. So even though I really did start to despise Bella during book two, I read through the gaggilion pages to the bitter end of book four.
DL - Why thank you, sir. :)
To all of you - thank you so very much for stopping by to read my post. I totally dig The Great Blogging Experiment. Have a fabulous weekend!
Sharon - Good point about the secondary characters.
Alex - I'll e-mail ya!
What about appealing to the reader's emotions by detailing my MCs's emotions? Could I over do that? *Cringing here!
Come and visit me!
Thanks for the post!
A Harry lover and a Bella hater---VERY nice to meet you! ;) I just love it when people agree with me. A lot of us ended up using Harry Potter characters in our posts I think for the very reason you say---they are so well defined.
Thanks for stopping over!