Hm, not a bad idea.

Subject: Hm, not a bad idea.
Author: Neshomeh
Posted on: 2017-09-18 21:48:00 UTC

There's a ton of information in this thread, though, and condensing it down into a format that would fit on the page will be tricky. Not that the page has to keep the structure it has now, but still. I don't suppose anyone besides me wants to give it a shot...?

Or we could just bung it all onto a subpage called Characterization/Advice from Boarders, or something like that.

~Neshomeh

Reply Return to messages

Jump to this post's position in the thread ↴

On characterisation by Huinesoron on 2017-09-13 14:19:00 UTC Reply

One of the things I've always struggled with in writing is figuring out how to craft characters who are actually different from each other, and keep them that way. All of my characters have a tendency to drift towards the same snarky baseline, which is fairly undesirable.

Recently, I've tried out a number of different ways of fixing this problem, and I thought it might be interesting to throw them out here. Perhaps they'll help anyone else who's having the same issue. Perhaps there are Boarders who've come up with their own ways of solving the problem, and would like to share them (hint, hint). Perhaps they'll just spark a bit of discussion. Let's find out!

#1: Modelling on People/Characters

This method grows directly out of being a fanfic writer. If you can write Legolas in-character as Legolas, then why not use the same technique to keep your own creation 'in-character' as a canon? Write what the canon would do, if they were in your character's situation.

This approach has the advantage that, if you watch/read enough of the source canon, it's pretty easy to form a good idea of what they would do. This is a fundamental skill for a fanfic writer, so it can be extended easily across to OCs. The downside is that it might end up being obvious (if your character keeps getting angry and smashing things with a lightsaber, people are going to look at Kylo Ren), and that the further you get from the character's baseline, the harder it can be to reliably predict their reactions.

The ultimate extension of this is self-inserts: you try and write them doing what you would do in the same situation. But we all know how badly self-inserts can go wrong…

#2: Keywords

Agent Kaitlyn is 'bouncy wannabe hobbit'. Agent Huinesoron is (or was, originally) 'racist snob'. If you can describe your character in two or three words, they can be pretty easy to keep to that characterisation.

This works very well for secondary and background characters; if they're only showing up occasionally, having a quick handle to latch your writing onto is ideal. It's less useful for protagonist types: it locks them out of progressing as characters, and can render them kind of flat. Agent Huinesoron has been breaking out of this (deliberately); Agent Kaitlyn has mostly stayed there (again, deliberately), because she's fun the way she is.

#3: Key Phrase

"I like guns, and I don't do scared… and apparently I'm a maudlin drunk." That's Agent Morgan, and that sentence let Lily Winterwood characterise her perfectly in the Blackout epic 'Generic Surface'. If your character can be tied to a phrase like this - not necessarily a catchphrase, though it can be - it can be a good way to share them with other people.

It gives more than the plain keywords, too. Morgan's 'don't do scared' shows off how she talks, and hints that she's not so much without fear as unwilling to admit to it. I think this method comes out of my fondness for acting - you can slip into an accent or a performance much easier if you have a key phrase to get started.

The downsides are much the same as for keywords, but in spades: they end up sticking as the character who would say the phrase, regardless of what it is. Luckily for me, that works pretty well for Time Lords.

#4: Twin Elements

There are ~~118~~ four elements - Earth, Air, Fire, and Water - and each of them can be used to describe a character. If I tell you someone is fiery, you imagine them as feisty, hotheaded, maybe angry; you can immediately tell they're not going to be calm and water-like.

So far, so shallow. The trick with this technique is to layer the elements. I phrase this as 'X, with hidden Y'. One character I've used this for is described as 'Water with hidden Air'. He's mysterious, magical, 'deep' - but underneath it all, kind of flighty (and actually a huge geek).

This is a great way to construct characters with multiple layers, and since it's about basic characterisation rather than specific traits, it can carry through character development. It does run into the problem that two Earth characters are likely to look much the same, even if one has hidden Water and the other Fire. Use it in small groups to set up differences; don't try and spread it too far.

#5: Animals

Almost a callback to #1 - rather than starting with another character, begin with an animal. If I tell you a character is owlish, or hedgehog-like, you conjure up an immediate idea of how they'll act, and maybe even how they'll look. That idea may be completely different from what I imagine - but that doesn't really matter so long as I, as the writer, can keep it consistent.

This is also another 'layered' characterisation tool. The ideas we have about animals tend to be multifaceted. A cat is prideful, but also lazy, and can be prone to fits of rage. A hedgehog is both adorable and prickly, and can be extremely defensive. Of course, this can be prone to drift… I'm pretty sure the character I pinned 'owl' to isn't a silent hunter type, but the animal might end up pointing her in that direction…

In our messy reality, most of the time you're going to use a mix of different ways to keep your characters IC, and probably even change it up over time. But I feel like having something to latch onto makes it easier - not only to get them started (and to stop them all consisting entirely of snarky one-liners), but to keep them going once they're made.

But what do you think?

hS

A few of my own thoughts/approaches. by PoorCynic on 2017-09-20 04:52:00 UTC Reply

First off, yes, I'm still here. I haven't left. I'm just kept very, very busy with tiring RL things. I'm hoping to carve out enough time and energy to get back into the community, but it's not a given thing.

Okay. Now that the explanation is out of the way, characters and character building! I love it. Probably a bit too much, which ties into why I'm never able to get anything actually done.

Of the methods that hS has mentioned here, I probably gravitate towards the first and second most of all. But only as a baseline. Once I establish the core of a character, then I start adding on characteristics and personality attributes. These can depend on what I want or need the character to do in the narrative, but sometimes they can just follow flights of fancy. Hopefully, I end up with something that is both distinct and still at least a little connected to my original vision. Or maybe not. Maybe all that editing and adding has created something totally different from what I originally intended. Which is also good.

Here's an example. For the last PPC Hunger Games, I made up a trio of scientists to provide commentary on the actions of Holo-Acacia: Dr. Daphne St. Auguste, Tess Jachowicz, and Naas'Gehlen vas Headquarters. The trio taken as a whole was modeled after the Mads from MST3K: the pushy, vaguely immoral scientist and his/her oddball flunkies. But that was just a rough sketch. I didn't want them to go full Mads; I wanted them to be actually competent, for one thing.

Let's go into more specifics. In addition to being inspired by the Mads, St. Auguste was a keyphrase character: 'the know-it-all genius.' And what good is being a know-it-all genius if nobody else knows you're such? So, I threw in her traits of rambling and always saying what was on her mind. There's still a bit of that original immorality, but I muted it to academic malfeasance rather than 'torturing people with bad movies.'

Jachowicz was meant to be the sane woman to St. Auguste's vague unhinged-ness, which unfortunately is not a position that necessarily lends itself toward making detailed characters. That being said, I was able to expand her characterization on the fly simply by reacting to events in the PPC Hunger Games: her diplomatic nature that slips a little when her boss isn't looking, her willingness to debate, and her vague affinity for parts of the Star Wars prequels. I hope to expand on her further given the opportunity.

Naas'Gehlen was meant to be the snarker. Whereas Jachowicz would respond to her boss with gentle debate or agreement, Naas was meant to be the one to crack wise. He was laid-back and easy-going, as opposed to the two more serious women. I actually patterned a bit him in my mind after a real person: NASA engineer Bobak Ferdowski, aka the mohawk guy from the Curiosity mission.

So… that went a little longer than expected. But I guess that's sort of the case with building characters: it can go on for longer than you expect, and weave you into some corners you maybe didn't expect.

Finally, let me just push this old thing back out into the spotlight one more time: my workshop on characters. Read and enjoy.

PC
2 and 3 together work well. by Hardric on 2017-09-19 07:48:00 UTC Reply

There is a RPG system, FATE, wich works by creeating 'Aspects' for the character, which follow these rules. Mainly a core one, a complication, and other for importants steps of life. The game system also got playing up or compelling these aspects as a major part of gameplay.

Guidelines like that really help for creating a character.
Is this going to be placed in the,,, by N. Harmonik on 2017-09-18 20:53:00 UTC Reply

...Characterization page on the wiki?

Hm, not a bad idea. by Neshomeh on 2017-09-18 21:48:00 UTC Reply

There's a ton of information in this thread, though, and condensing it down into a format that would fit on the page will be tricky. Not that the page has to keep the structure it has now, but still. I don't suppose anyone besides me wants to give it a shot...?

Or we could just bung it all onto a subpage called Characterization/Advice from Boarders, or something like that.

~Neshomeh

Hm. by Zingenmir on 2017-09-19 06:50:00 UTC Reply

I...*might* be up for it in a couple of weeks, but the subpage sounds like a better idea. Especially since it means that people who weren't involved in or around for the initial thread could add to it...

~Z

My own method (corrected) by TripleDES on 2017-09-17 02:13:00 UTC Reply

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

When it comes to pitching fictional characters, I've really been a fan of what I've called the "Mini Story" method, and not using adjectives or subjective qualities that leave things open for guessing. Instead, I prefer to use means of describing characters that is much more concrete. Although I advise this to other people who pitch their characters to me, I also think it could be one way to expand on characters that aren't fully finished yet and figuring out the hows and why's of who this character is.

It's one thing for someone to say, for example: "My character is really proud of herself but can be modest too." This really doesn't tell me much about your character, and I think that's the best way to give people the wrong idea about your character because everyone will interpret being proud of yourself in different ways. I think a better way I could put this would be to tell what I call a "Mini Story" about your character.

"My character likes to brag about her accomplishments in sports but if she meets someone who shows more expertise than her, she'll always shut up and listen."
"My character loves to show off her acting skills in front of other people, but keeps her acting life separate from her stage life and doesn't talk about it."
"My character flaunts her swordsmanship in front of other people, but when she sees magic, immediately shuts up."

Not only does telling a "Mini Story" shed more light about your character and give some concrete examples of what they do, it also can shed a bit of light on your setting, possibly their job, and also is able to separate, reconcile, and add more depth to two contradictory terms.

When it comes to making characters and not just pitching them, I find that if I start with one "Mini Story" I can start branching off from there, and build more onto that Mini Story by asking myself questions about the character. From there I can build more onto it.

"My character loves to brag about her accomplishments in sports." -

Maybe she was in a varsity?
Did she build any friends in there?
How could some of those friendships affected her?
Friends don't last forever, why would some of them have not made it?
How could this have had an impact on her as a character? How did this affect her worldview?

Or we could take a different road and take the first.

Why would she choose to so readily shut up and listen?
It sounds like she has a competitive streak, which is tempered by respect for people that are more experienced than her. Why such reverence?
Was she humbled in the past in a way that could've left a lasting impact on her?
Why?
How does this apply to the rest of who she is as a character?

- From there things just grow, and I find that having these sorts of things written down also helps, especially if you're trying to explain the character to another person. These notes come in incredibly valuable when trying to explain who the character is to someone else without having to give them the whole infodump, and can let you explain a character in just a few bites of information, without making your audience go glass-eyed.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iLUEARMKAB0WIQTfllUBtaeNnRzzfmVK3+74uImA+wUCWb3MIgAKCRBK3+74uImA
+83pAgCJD3+K/ENYbqzrcKGscPNky4A5CgcJGpcRE0YVyBLLOmjMLBJCnUS5ZESs
a74Zb5btKYbvgZAhK3Wlo5ndNBkQAf92lIZos27X9W3y1fS8bBZmnj8ph2SaNkyC
5yVKrIY7Es9cSmglyHxPV+DJ4LYkfWcZX9Vf3g+Tnb9xDOS0rTFe
=9a4C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I use my own method, here it is for reference. by TripleDES on 2017-09-17 02:12:00 UTC Reply

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Great to see you, Grundleplith, I'm new to the forum as well.

Hearing about Redwall makes me feel nostalgic, I think Redwall was one of my first forays into the fantasy genre, glad to meet more people that also like it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iLUEARMKAB0WIQTfllUBtaeNnRzzfmVK3+74uImA+wUCWb3GogAKCRBK3+74uImA
+y4zAf0VowXO/w5SvHuXiZ9bU2w9x0ozSnWOGzZQO36drk+p9oQ8i99OtLkVXiSd
Ps7Y2lRwkMdivW48HJlrcAWW7QMLAf9hMPul/iyCNj7n/mZ+WGm9KrcKnk1SY6mz
n0T/o3B9M+sgsS5RJXxvAtRS7JkVEGUMnsoCm/os5rKjYoQWGybX
=wUPH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Whoops, wrong thread (nm) (nm) by TripleDES on 2017-09-17 02:13:00 UTC Reply

Ooh, thanks for this interesting bit of info! by twistedwindowpane on 2017-09-15 02:19:00 UTC Reply

Very useful.

Question for everyone:
What are your personal tropes in terms of characters, plots, settings, etc? I'm curious to see what everyone usually does.

-Twistey
Chemistry! by Larfen J. Stocke, esq. on 2017-09-14 13:15:00 UTC Reply

I actually, just a bit ago, spent a whole heap of time fiddling around with working in a new character, and had a similar issue. I've found that, at least for me, with what I write, how I write, et al, that a good way to differentiate a character is by considering their chemistry with other characters. What 'role' they fill amongst a cast of characters, how they interact with them, that sort of thing.

The first PPCfellows I developed - Finch and Bingle - came out as a result of that sort of thing, in fact - one being intensely caustic and paranoid and, to contrast, the other being incredibly passive and somewhat dopey, with the rest of their personalities developing around those concepts. 'Why' Finch is paranoid, 'why' Bingle is passive, et al. I recently realised that many of the other characters I had in the thingy I'm doing were very sort of accepting, passive-sorts, so I've taken to further emphasising Finch's rebelliousness, which is certainly a thing I would not have considered on first having written him. Finch was, in fact, in the style of method #1, modelled after another character - Yossarian, from Catch-22. I, initially, was focussing on the 'paranoia' aspect of his personality and, in those initial stages, would have decided Finch would have been too cowardly for such rebelliousness. And where he certainly was really quite derivative to start with, I like to think that all of these small alterations eventually led him into growing into more of his own thing.

This, of course, works a whole lot easier on an ensemble cast, and you got to look out for flat characters with that sort of thing! The character's role within their cast should serve to be as a guide for the rest of their development - not their entire character. Finch's role is that of the caustic, rebellious, cowardly straight-man, but he still has personality beyond that, other elements of his personality shaping those particular traits. The classic 'why' is he caustic, 'why' is he rebellious - 'why' does he fit within that role? While he is made to work well with certain characters, he can still be written on his own, because he still is his own character, y'know?

I think there can be a separation, then, of the concept of the character and the delivery of them. At their cores, Yossarian and Finch (at least, how I worked on it) were made of the same concept: a character that is near unreasonably afraid of dying. It was in delivery that they diverged - Yossarian is depicted as compassionate, loyal, constantly falling in love with various women. He loves life and people because he is terrified of losing them. Finch, on the other hand, is bitter, cynical, thinks everyone else is mad. He despises life because he is enraged that it would dare try and leave him.
So I guess that could be a thing to consider - look at a character, figure out what, exactly, the most basic, most general concept of them is, and then figure, in what other ways could that concept be delivered?
An angry taxi driver could be angry because he hates his job, or maybe he's angry because he likes it too much and believes nobody respects it enough. That sort of thing.

I wonder if I even answered the question.

Chemistry!

Oh yes, the why. by Neshomeh on 2017-09-14 15:53:00 UTC Reply

That's also central to how I make my characters. Not so much the badfic recruits, because everything about them is already known, but Nume is a good example.

For him, the basic starting concept was Dr. House, or "brilliant misanthrope with a chemical habit." Well, once he decided he wanted to be his own person and stopped being Generic Agent #2. The Bleep habit actually came from the very first Fill the Plothole I wrote with him, though, in which I interpreted the summary as Legolas coming across an agent's Bleeprin, accidentally dropped in-fic, and the agents having to go get it back. Proto-Nume was very upset about losing that Bleeprin. Why? Well, wouldn't it be interesting, I thought, for a PPC agent to have an eidetic memory? He'd know his canon backward, forward, and inside-out, but he'd also be stuck with all the disturbing and awful things that can happen on missions. So that made Bleeprin a vital necessity to normal function and also set him on the road to "brilliant." "Misanthrope" came along for the ride.

So why does a guy like that do a job like this? Few people become PPC agents who aren't in some way passionate about it, and that holds true for Nume, too. One of his stealth traits is that he loves his job. He wouldn't trade being a PPC agent for anything. Why? His life back home was kinda rough. He was a huge geek in a time when being a huge geek wasn't easy. He grew up wanting to be on the bridge of the Enterprise, or at least somewhere in Middle-earth. He loves his canons better than he loves himself. And every so often, it shows.

But how do I know he comes from that time? Oddly enough, because of his voice—and, I'm embarrassed to admit, a bit of my own teenage arrogance. I thought I needed to explain my tendency to use big words and unusual turns of phrase somehow. That is the sole reason Nume is from the 70s: because I thought I sounded older than I was. Sigh. But, once I'd made that call, I was stuck with it, so I had to actually learn more about the 50s-70s and how growing up in that time would shape someone. That's how Nume ended up taking some inspiration from my dad, and sounding a bit like him sometimes. I think that's how he ended up being a Trekkie, too, because Star Trek was on the air then, and it's kind of the original modern fandom. It worked. So I had to learn Trek, too. >.>

What else... Oh yes, why does Nume swear the way he does? Catholic upbringing, deeply resented. Why does he know medical stuff? His parents were a doctor and a nurse. Why is he squicked out by sex? That repressed religious upbringing fits the bill again. Why does he hate people? He was a freak in a less tolerant world, and people were pretty much never good to him, so why bother?

Eventually, all the pieces just kinda fit together and you end up with a whole, solid character. The more you ask why, the more you find out, and every answer makes them more unique and more them. {= )

~Neshomeh

fascinating by Thoth on 2017-09-14 17:42:00 UTC Reply

I know, "fascinating" is rapidly becoming my catchphrase. But it's interesting nonetheless.

Nume approves, but advises you not to take it in vain. by Neshomeh on 2017-09-14 17:46:00 UTC Reply

(( Also, apropos of nothing, the radio is currently playing the Ride of the Valkyries on piccolo. It's like the tiniest heroic charge is happening. This is hilarious and I had to share. ~Neshomeh ))

Voice is very important. by Neshomeh on 2017-09-13 16:11:00 UTC Reply

For me, characterization is build in large part upon what they sound like in my head—what kinds of words they use, are they prone to rambling or not, subtle or blunt, evasive or direct, and other dichotomies like that.

This is tied directly into their background. Agent Derik, for example, talks a certain way because he's Pernese and Harper-trained, and also based on the Phantom of the Opera. (In his case, your canon character model is useful.) But mostly he's Pernese, which tells me what kind of slang he uses and doesn't use, terms he's likely to think in, etc. He's also intelligent and educated, which matters.

Gall, on the other hand, is intelligent but uneducated. She's less likely to use big Latin-derived words, and her direct, no-nonsense personality means she's going to be blunt and cut straight to the point of whatever she's trying to say, whether anyone likes it or not. She's unlikely to ramble. She doesn't mind being crude and even offensive. But she does have a soft spot for her dragon, and doesn't mind cooing over him, either. Her home continuum has sort of a loose voice itself, with plenty of anachronisms used for humor, which means I'm not too restricted in the kinds of references she can use—one reason I wanted to write her.

Closely related to voice are the things a character cares about enough to talk (or snark) about. What do they especially like? Dislike? Fear? Hate? Want? For PPC characters, I think about this in terms of what bugs them about badfic. Everybody has their own pet peeve(s) that will always drive them up the wall. For Nume, it's medical BS and messing up the lore he knows so well. For Ilraen, it's screwing with the characters' loving relationships and cruelty, intentional or not, especially to children and animals. For Derik, it's messing with dragons and music. For Gall, she really hates fluff and also tends to notice when the story contradicts itself.

They also all have their particular favorite or well-known fandoms, which make them more invested and motivated.

Related to voice is mannerisms. Everyone has little physical tics they do subconsciously, especially when they're nervous or upset. Derik touches his hair; Nume, his neck or face; Gall paces or fidgets; Ilraen shuffles his feet or fusses with his hands. There's also how they show affection (if they show it). Nume is extremely reserved physically, but even he might give the occasional approving nod. Derik often is, too, but in his more ebullient moments he might clap someone on the shoulder or shake their hand. Gall will give a friendly slap or punch. Ilraen is tentative (comes of being around Nume all the time), but will pat someone, or hug them if the situation warrants.

I know all these little details because the characters tell me, but you could also assign them deliberately. I think the main bullet points are level of vocabulary, style of slang/cultural references (also includes whether and how they curse), key likes and dislikes, and physical mannerisms.

I hope that helps!

~Neshomeh
A simple solution by Maxewell on 2017-09-13 15:46:00 UTC Reply

I view my characters as starting off like a ball of snow (dirt, wet sand, whatever) and as the story progresses, they roll around, becoming bigger. Do they roll over sticks? Do they pick them up, or do those break them? Are they getting dirtier over time? Are they getting large, and the same as they started? It's simple, but it works for me.
I guess my writing style means I cheat around this process. by doctorlit on 2017-09-13 15:18:00 UTC Reply

Since characters pop into my head fully formed, and all.

<>
>>

—doctorlit can't help the way ideas show up

But do they come out varied? by Huinesoron on 2017-09-13 15:45:00 UTC Reply

I mean, I get that, but in my case it tends to result in a lot of snark-happy protagonists and an alarming number of bouncy homicidal women. The reason I've been struggling to put together some method to change that up is to try and get something different out there.

hS

I think so? by doctorlit on 2017-09-13 19:08:00 UTC Reply

I mean, I feel like Vania is noticeably upbeat compared to Doc, Yoof and Séverine have pretty unique speech patterns . . . I do worry some of my Nursery kids are going to wind up sounding similar, as I don't have a good handle on writing kid dialogue, but I'll need to write more with them to find out for sure.

—doctorlit, not very in control of his writing by any means

Ohgodthanks by Thoth on 2017-09-13 15:06:00 UTC Reply

I have always struggled with this. It's gotten better, and I've read a lot of advice on it (much of it similar to what you wrote), but it's still helpful.
Good stuff. by Iximaz on 2017-09-13 14:57:00 UTC Reply

I do a lot of the Keywords model. The Aviator is "cranky drunk", Zeb is "fluffy cutie".

From there I just kind of... you know. Um.

*scrambles to hide lack of notes*

I guess I just write around the character's core personality. They still grow, but that central part to them (usually) doesn't change. I know Ave and Zeb especially have been growing closer together in terms of personality—she's starting to harden him, he's starting to soften her up.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that they're starting to get more similar, because they still have very distinct voices (I think? I hope?) and different approaches to missions. It just shows they're influencing each other, which I think does make sense considering how much time they spend together.