What's your technique? I want to contrast and compare.
I develop my characters as I write my story. That they're not developed enough is maybe why I've never finished a novel.
Posted by wbriggs (Member # 2267) on :
I usually don't do it formally, but I do brainstorm. Who is this guy/gal? What's the struggle? How would he react in the situation I'm putting him in? Recently I found I had a missionary character that was just a missionary. I improved him by brainstorming for weaknesses.
Posted by djvdakota (Member # 2002) on :
When I can imagine his voice and feel his attitudes in my head , I know him well enough to write about him.
Posted by TaShaJaRo (Member # 2354) on :
I like to write a detailed backstory for my lead and opposition characters. Knowing what has happened to them prior to the point the story begins helps me understand how and why they will react in any given situation.
Posted by Pyre Dynasty (Member # 1947) on :
I try to at least get their names solidied before I start. Then I find the most important char in the scene and I ask them questions. I usually start with Who are you? and then I write their name. Sometimes I ask them things specifically about what is going to happen other times I ask abstract philosophical things. A real interesting one is: Where is Truth?
Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :
Ask questions. Why does this character act this way? For some characters, you might leave some motivations as a black box, because you never use them as POV. For others, you really can't ever stop asking.
Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :
Oooh, Survivor stayed logged into my computer. :evillaugh:
Posted by franc li (Member # 3850) on :
But someone doing things you just can't explain is also a good part of characterization. I mean, beyond the black box level. I wouldn't want to read a whole book peopled soleley with such characters, and no major plot turns should hinge on them. Unless, of course, that is their nature.
Posted by Christine (Member # 1646) on :
"But someone doing things you just can't explain is also a good part of characterization."
What? Why is this a good part of characterization? Now, if you want to read a book like this then go ahead, but I don't see how you can argue that it is well-characterized.
I don't write detailed explanations of why every minor character in my book does everything, especially if they do things that aren't too out of the ordinary. But the main characters, even the main antagonist, have motivations. If I've got someone killing people I will know why and even if I never tell the reader why, there will be consistencies and clues that they can use to guess.
In fact, the best plotlines can stem out of someone doing something completely off-kilter when they have a strong motivation behind it.
Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :
I can't speak for FL, but she might mean "motives that do not arise out of rational thought" rather than totally inexplicable motives.
In the end, all motives must have a non-rational root, after all. Even the decision to use logic to achieve our goals has to be made without the help of logic. This fact is one of the first discoveries that lies at the root of formally studying logic.
How well characters use reason to pursue their goals does tell us something about them. But their actual goals tell us a lot more. And goals are ultimately illogical.
Posted by JBSkaggs (Member # 2265) on :
I notice also that writers tend to try and pile too many hats on one character. Rather than break the roles down into seperate characters they somehow will try and have one character do the job of two or three characters in the story. Which ends up making the character seem insane, contradictory, unbelievable or unrealistic.
Posted by RavenStarr (Member # 2327) on :
Honestly, it depend completely on what I'm writing… sometimes the character doesn't ever really exist much at all until the moment that I wrote it in the story… other times, every detail of the character from birth 'til death is completely mapped out and before I ever start. It just all depends on how the Muses choose to posses me…
Posted by KatFeete (Member # 2161) on :
The majority of the time I start with two or three very well-developed characters. It's why I write. There's all these people in my head, and eventually they start to drive me so nutty, hanging out, taking up space, talking through the movie and tracking on the carpets, that I start writing just to get them the hell out.
They develop quite a bit throughout the story, of course, but that's generally just refinements. The core of the character is already there.
Minor characters are more problematic. They tend to be created for a specific purpose in the story and, held up to my bossy main characters, they look a bit washed out. I've developed a little questionnare that I use to flesh them, and occasionally even the major characters, out. It helps.
Posted by franc li (Member # 3850) on :
On things you just can't explain, it's probably due to my preference for first person POV. I can't know the motivations of others. Life is like that.
Posted by TaShaJaRo (Member # 2354) on :
I just tried something new tonight in character development that I'm sure others have tried before but it worked really well for me. I interviewed one of my characters and I was Barbara Walters brutal. I made them answer all the tough questions. It was really an interesting exercise. It allowed me to "hear" their voice when they replied. It also showed me where they truly believe something and where they either outright lie about it or are self deceived. It was a fascinating insight into this character.
I made them answer all the tough questions. It was really an interesting exercise. It allowed me to "hear" their voice when they replied. It also showed me where they truly believe something and where they either outright lie about it or are self deceived. It was a fascinating insight into this character.