Once upon a time about six weeks ago, I taught a couple of days’ worth of classes to 7th and 8th graders, which I sort of already blogged about. It was a great deal of fun. I love honors students, remember that? So for the next few posts, I’m going to act like a Real Author and talk about some more depthy writerly business that I gave those kids in a very basic form. I was feeling all alliterative the day I prepared my talk (um, that morning, natch), so here’s what I told them a book or story needs:
Character
Choices and Consequences (also Coincidence)
Conflict
Conversation
Completion
Shall we discuss? Of course we shall. Today? Character.
What is a story if not the character? When I read, I care about the WHO. The what? Well, that’s fun and stuff, but mainly as a reflection of the who – how will he react? What will she be willing to change/sacrifice/undergo? To me, it all comes down to a truly reachable character. Does that mean you have to honor them? No way. I read a lot of books, and not all the characters I connect with are honorable. Not by a long shot. Some protags are deeply flawed, and some, deeply BAD. And I’m totally okay with that. I can get behind a bad guy. I like to, in a book (because it’s so not like me to get behind a bad guy in reality). Just because I don’t WRITE bad guys doesn’t mean I don’t occasionally love them.
In fact, some of my favorite movies have what I call the Good-Bad Guy. The likeable, lovable thief (Oceans 11, 12, 13; Italian Job). The heart of the character overcomes the wickedness of his actions. Notice that I don’t write those sorts of characters. That’s because I don’t actually have those sorts of experiences, and I don’t actually know how to research something like that without um, committing felonies. Which I won’t, even for the sake of a good story. So don’t ask.
But some of the characters in books that I love are so incredibly, deeply good, that my breathing restricts. Atticus Finch. Oh, he is so good. He stands up, in the face of everything most dangerous – and at the risk of his kids’ safety – for what is True and Good and Right.
And other characters that I adore are just Real. Have we all read Sharon Creech’s Bloomability? Guthrie remains one of my favorite boy characters in the world, as does Rudy Steiner from The Book Thief. They may not be remarkable, but they are so lovable that I can’t forget them. They are pure in heart. That gets me as much as a likeable bad guy. Weird? Maybe, But I like all kinds of characters, fictional and human. And a well-drawn character will pull me into a book no matter the What is happening.
So how do we make a character? There are people who will tell you rules. I, however much I love rules in my life, don’t love them in writing. So here are some, um, ideas about building a character.
* Discover what your character needs. Based on personality, situation, and longing, all characters need something. A ring of power? An un-find-able answer? A love? A missing painting? Find out what your character needs. Then keep it from him.
For as long as you can.
I know, right? A little sadistic. But hey – writers are all a little sadistic. Look at Dr. Seuss. That’s all I’m saying.
* Find your character’s voice. This is something every writing teacher will tell you. And guess what? That’s about all they say. Because maybe it’s impossible to teach Voice. But here’s what I think: Your character’s voice is his guts. His depth. His anxieties and his fears and his humor and his dreams, all forced through the funnel of his mind. Honestly, a character doesn’t even have to speak to have Voice. There’s some old movie about the Nuremburg Trials, that may be called The Nuremburg Trials (hey, we don’t make fun of people for trying) where the guy on trial has no lines until the very last scene of the film. But Voice? Oh, yeah. In his eyes, his posture, his Resistance. In a film, that’s a visually powerful form of Voice. In books, we have to write it all down. But that doesn’t mean the character has to be speaking the words. Remember Speak by Laurie Halse Anderson? Like that. (Narrative Voice and Tone is related. Not necessarily the same. But very related. Like cousins, or sisters-in-law. Or something.)
* Characters need depth. In visual art, like painting or drawing, depth comes from being shadowed. Not being all one color or value. Your really good good-guy needs a vice. And your nasty antagonist has to have some spark of light in him. Unless you’re Roald Dahl. Then you can write pure-gold good guys and pitch-black villains because you’re just so clever. But I? Am not Mr. Dahl. Nor are you. Just saying. Let your character surprise you with a little unexpectedness. This prevents plagues like stereotypes. *Shudder* Let’s agree to shade our characters, shall we?
* If you’re writing a protagonist versus an antagonist, don’t let them both win. If one wins, the other really must lose. This is because their goals have to be mutually exclusive. If you win, I lose. This ticks off people who preach the Seven Habits (like Old Steve, and My Dad) but it makes for a much more compelling story. So for he protagonist to get what he wants, what he needs, the antagonist must miss/lose what he was after all along. See that? And they should be equally matched. The old “Pick on someone your own size” theory, which you roll your eyes at when you start reading Harry Potter, because, hello? He’s a little kid. Nobody’s going to leave a little kid alone to go ahead and fight the most powerful black-magic wizard in the history of the universe. But as he grows in depth and ability and resourcefulness, and as he learns where he needs to look for help, he becomes more than a match for the Big Bad Guy. See? (Note: Remember how Voldy was a good-looking, popular teen? That’s shade. Also, I think he loves his snake. More shade. Depth. Like that.)
Next time, we talk about Choices and Consequences. And a little about Coincidences. Come on back!
(10) Comments for this blog
Thanks for the reminder that I need to deprive my character of what she needs. That was what I was lacking in my story. I’ll have to think on that.
Thanks for the reminder that I need to deprive my character of what she needs. That was what I was lacking in my story. I’ll have to think on that.
Wow – wonderful points. I am not a writer, I wish I was!!
Wow – wonderful points. I am not a writer, I wish I was!!
Awesome advice! I can’t wait to hear about the consequences (post)! Mwa ha ha. =)
Awesome advice! I can’t wait to hear about the consequences (post)! Mwa ha ha. =)
I agree with you, that to me, the WHO is so much more important than anything else. So many times I can’t recall plot, but I do recall my feelings about the characters.
I agree with you, that to me, the WHO is so much more important than anything else. So many times I can’t recall plot, but I do recall my feelings about the characters.
Keeping what one wants from him makes for a more compelling storyline, tru dat. Many a good TV series was ruined because writers decided to let the inherent tension die: Dave and Maddie on “Moonlighting”, anyone?
The whole win-lose issue doesn’t just bug Steve-O and Dad… it bugs capitalists and economists in general. The concept of a zero-sum game (I win, you lose or vice-versa) is anathema, really it’s bedrock socialism: if there are winners, there are losers too, so let’s all be moderately unhappy together with neither, but I digress. I live in a world where there are win/lose scenarios, but ther are WIN/win (I win *more* than you, am better off, but you aren’t done for, and we get to fight again). Think Holmes/Moriarty or Bart Simpson/Moe Szyslak. But I concede that a vanquished foe makes for good fiction (and perhaps better fiction in some cases). Also, I don’t necessarily need closure in my fiction (sequels!).
Keeping what one wants from him makes for a more compelling storyline, tru dat. Many a good TV series was ruined because writers decided to let the inherent tension die: Dave and Maddie on “Moonlighting”, anyone?
The whole win-lose issue doesn’t just bug Steve-O and Dad… it bugs capitalists and economists in general. The concept of a zero-sum game (I win, you lose or vice-versa) is anathema, really it’s bedrock socialism: if there are winners, there are losers too, so let’s all be moderately unhappy together with neither, but I digress. I live in a world where there are win/lose scenarios, but ther are WIN/win (I win *more* than you, am better off, but you aren’t done for, and we get to fight again). Think Holmes/Moriarty or Bart Simpson/Moe Szyslak. But I concede that a vanquished foe makes for good fiction (and perhaps better fiction in some cases). Also, I don’t necessarily need closure in my fiction (sequels!).