| Author |
Message |
    
Dennis Collins
Mindsight Moderator
Post Number:
1526
Registered: 06-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 07:03 pm: |   |
The single thing that makes a series successful is the personality of the main character. I believe that the authors most important job is to mold that person into an irresistable figure. Perhaps we could bounce around a few ideas.
I know that there are people in this world whose very presence gives me an uncomfortable feeling. Usually, they're the pushy or arrogant type. I think I'd try to avoid those traits in my main guy.
But I'm sure we have all known people who we look forward to seeing and hanging out with. What makes them special? Confidence? Courage? Friendliness? Or maybe it's just because they seem to like us.
How important is appearance? How about their name?
Any thoughts? |
Joy Lee Rutter
Wisdom Member
Post Number:
583
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 08:05 pm: | |
"What makes them special? Confidence? Courage? Friendliness?"
Dennis, I (personally) am drawn to the sort who listens when I talk, shows interest in what others have to say and proves that by giving eye contact. This sort of person does not strut with the nose in the air and he or she treats people with respect no matter what their "station" in life. I am most drawn to "real" people, not phoney types.
We all know someone in our lives with an "all about me" attitude. Not cool. The type that seems to crave center of attention, I avoid like the plague. That is probably one character trait to watch for when creating the likable people in our fiction. From personal experience, in my 2nd book "A Flamboyant Disarray...", my editor pointed out a few unlikable traits in Joleen and I had to do some attitude adjustments so she didn't come off looking like a bi*ch. 
Joy
http://behlerpublications.com/titles-rutter.asp |
Claudia Turner VanLydegraf
Mindsight Moderator
Post Number:
2013
Registered: 06-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 08:53 pm: | |
In real life, I am drawn to people who want more than anything else, to do something with the time that they have here. But it can't be just something frivilous, like making money for the sake of making money, it has to be something that has backbone and stamina and at least the look of something for others to make themselves feel better about their world. I really can't stand users and people who take advantage of situations and never give an ounce to anyone, no matter how badly someone else needs something from them. Of course, I always want to put people up on a pedestal in real life, so that I don't have to always see the messier side of them. Something that totally turns me off of certain people is that they think they are entitled to be waited on and that no one else is as important to anyone than they should be, or they think that whatever comes to them by their advantagae grabs is totally supposed to be theirs. When that person that I have put up on a pedestal falls off of it, it sometimes is really messy, and I have left marriages, relationships and tight friendships because I found something that was totally disguisting in a person and I just couldn't accept that they were really that way. But the poison was always really there, in most cases, I had just put blinders on and hoped that they would live up to my desires and somewhat unrealistic standards of hope, and they didn't. I guess that it has something to do with a certaian honor. It wasn't their fault, it was mine, because I was hoping for the impossible. Mostly that was when I was much younger, and now, I don't expect or want so much from others, but I do want more from myself.
As fas as characters in a book, I look for and like a certain vulnerability in those people who are supposed to be the center of the book. Vulerability to not always be right, be perfect, be the top dog in whatever situation, have some flaws and be willing to own them, and to try to fix themselves and also others without being too offensive. To be trying to live the best life they can under whatever circumstances along the way have dealt them. Unlikable traits are sometimes OK, if the unlikable part of the conflict is about the best person they can be and how they have to achieve that part of their being. I like an honorable person as a lead. And they have to show a temperment of wanting to do the right thing, at least a good portion of the time. They may not always succeed, and that is the place in their heart that makes their vulnerability that makes them a good person, they at least want to do it.
I don't mind total jerks and nasty people in the story as that makes the center of the story more appealing in a tenative way.
Does any of that make sense to you, Dennis?
Claudia
MINDSIGHT MODERATOR
|
Dennis Collins
Mindsight Moderator
Post Number:
1527
Registered: 06-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 03:41 am: | |
Claudia...
The "vulnerability" trait that you described is one of the things that I've hopefully incorporated in the personalities of all three of my protagonists. I think it adds to their believablity and it can be a very subtle characteristic. It helps the reader identify with the character as well.
Are thare any common, non genre specific features that make up a likable character? I'm thinking that Gilligan was every bit as well liked as Magnum P.I. even though their substance was distinctlty different. I guess what I'm looking for is a subliminal common denominator.
And then when the character is satisfactorily formed, I'd think that you'd have to add a unique quirk. |
Pacwriter
Unity Member
Post Number:
1903
Registered: 04-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 07:24 am: | |
Jason Bourne
Horatio Hornblower
Travis McGee
James Bond
I really think the story determines the traits of the main character.
http://www.pacwriter.netfirms.com/ |
Dennis Collins
Mindsight Moderator
Post Number:
1528
Registered: 06-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 07:40 am: | |
Yeah but in a series, the constant is the main character and the stories are tailored to fit. In my opinion it's definitely the character who carries the series and not the other way around. |
Mary Erickson
Wandering Member
Post Number:
179
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 08:18 am: | |
In my current manuscript, the protagonist is a young man who has a loving mother, but a mentally abusive father. He learns after his fathers death that the man wasn't really his father and that his father was a sperm donor. He has the reproduction center write to his father to see if the man wants to have a relationship, but the man isn't interested and refuses to reveal his identity. The young protagonist is understandably bitter and does something illegal to find out who the man is. In the process he uses another person badly.
I don't know about anyone else, but I'll thing a work is finished and send it out about three drafts too soon. Anyhow, I sent three chapters to an agent who critiqued them. She said the protagonist was not likable because of what he did and this wasn't working for her. I agree that other characters can be obnoxious but the protagonist should be likable in most cases. So this is one thing I've paid attention to in my redrafting. Although, I needed for the situation to stay the same, I've tried to have the young man show remorse and become more likable. I only hope I've pulled it off.
Mary
www.merickson.org
www.behlerpublications.com |
Pacwriter
Unity Member
Post Number:
1904
Registered: 04-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 09:10 am: | |
Barry Sadler - some of you remember the name from the song he wrote BALLARD OF THE GREEN BERETS - did a series of books about FOX a lieutentant in the English Navy during the 1700's. Fox was an SOB with a bad attitude for everything navy, authority, government and the upperclasses. He was a hero who never got the credit for his heroic deeds. He was also ugly and bad tempered. But through twenty-something books Sadler keep selling Fox.
Guys who read westerns, sea-novels and the like are more interested in the story than the goodness of the character. My conlcusion is you write for an audience and put out a great story with believable flawed characters.
http://www.pacwriter.netfirms.com/ |
Steven Shrewsbury
Unity Member
Post Number:
1231
Registered: 04-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 09:40 am: | |
I find a name is a good hook. Folks recall them easier. I make them simple.
Dack Shannon
Thor Alexander
Lucan Mac Aliester
Gorias La Gaul
Then, a main guy (or gal) shouldn't be perfect...but should be likeable,, even if he or she crosses the line and realzies they are flawed. A main characetr full of self doubt isn't too much fun for me, but ironically enough, Elijah Blackthorn is just that...for he isn't sure his grip on reality is stable due to his abilities.
My tales are usually about beatign the odds, or how one reacts when things happen...never thought of it that was on purpose, really...but the stuff that makes a character act or react...that CHARACTER of a characttr...that stuff is what hooks them in...
www.stevenshrewsbury.com
GODFORSAKEN
Behler Publications |
Dennis Collins
Mindsight Moderator
Post Number:
1530
Registered: 06-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 12:44 pm: | |
Mike Hammer is a good example of a combination of a great name and a less than perfect character. If I'm not mistaken, it was Hammer who blew away a Communist simply because he was a potential threat. But that was back in the days that immmediately preceded the Joseph McCarthy era and most Americans were comfortable with the action. |
Claudia Turner VanLydegraf
Mindsight Moderator
Post Number:
2016
Registered: 06-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 12:57 pm: | |
I think that you are always on the search for "heart" of a character, something that makes them vulnerable, honest, giving, willing to go the limit for what they believe in, willing to give of themselves for a cause, no matter what the cause is, when it is needed, to save country, love of home, love of wife and family, love of self.
I guess that is what I would call vulnerability, or heart. That ability to give all, for the purpose of gaining great things, or nothing. But to be able to give with the whole of the being. That cold blooded integrity that the thing that they are doing, whatever it is, is for a good cause and they will get it done because they are honest in and have ~ Heart..... And they have a relationship within themselves to know that they may very well lose the prize, but they could also win.
Claudia
MINDSIGHT MODERATOR
|
Fred Dungan
Wisdom Member
Post Number:
988
Registered: 10-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 01:06 pm: | |
I've gone beyond the limits. The protagonist of 9/11 Vigilantes is a smart ass know-it-all who constantly taunts the reader. He's the kind of kid that people love to hate. This is a step up from the main character, Condo Don, in my first novel who by choice is a homeless, ill-tempered malcontent who finds Jesus, cleans up his act, and proceeds to literally shove the Bible down the throat of a potty-mouthed child molester. I've been blessed (or cursed) in that I've always lived in low rent districts where these types abound. For a paltry $12.95 the reader gets to go slumming for a few hours with the lunatic fringe whom he or she wouldn't dare associate with in real life. Needless to say, I don't buy the premise that the main character has to be cute, cuddly, and toilet-trained in order to prove interesting to readers. In fact, I have found the exact opposite to be the case. I'm sure many of you will disagree. However, please keep in mind that people buy almost as many books about serial killers as they do about saints.
What I absolutely refuse to do is to glorify anyone who is in free fall and has yet to reach rock bottom. However obnoxious my characters may prove to be, they are consciously attempting to improve their lives. By the final chapter of 9/11 Vigilantes, the protagonist has markedly matured, is volunteering as a part time Reserve Deputy Sheriff, and is writing severely flawed poetry to his dream lover. I confess fascination with the human menagerie. This motivates me to go where others fear to tread in both my real life and literary personas. I live what I write.
http://www.fdungan.com/vigilantes.htm
|
Joy Lee Rutter
Wisdom Member
Post Number:
586
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 09:15 pm: | |
"....a smart ass know-it-all who constantly taunts the reader...."
Fred, I enjoy it most when I have to "work" to find a likeable trait in the protagonist. Remember Archie Bunker? Main character on 'All In The Family'. Total buffoon, but the show was a hit in the early 70s. On a different thread, I mentioned the Fox channel's "House" because the main character is an arrogant snarly doctor who breaks all the rules. He wasn't molded with a cookie cutter such as the likes of The Brady Bunch. ('Stepford Bunch' would have been more fitting.)
A couple reasons I use television characters rather than books is because more of us have seen the same shows than have read the same books. Also, I like to use movies and TV as a study in character development. Watching the body language, and listening to dialogue (with the captions enabled), is a great way to learn.  Want an interesting character if you're writing serious stuff? Watch anything starring Jack Nicholson. For humor, watch The Sienfeld show, but key in on Kramer.
Joy
http://behlerpublications.com/titles-rutter.asp |
Dennis Collins
Mindsight Moderator
Post Number:
1532
Registered: 06-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 04:27 am: | |
I think we're getting close to the question if not the answer here. Why was Archie Bunker as well liked as Sienfeld's Kramer? Maybe Archie is not a good example because he was pretty much a caricature, but there have been others who came across as downright surly and still enjoyed popularity.
What's the ingredient? Is it an internal struggle as in Fred's character? Could it be merely the courage to live up to your convictions no matter how skewed they may be.
I know one thing for sure and that would be that my primary reason for returning to a series is to see what my guy is doing these days. If a character repulses me or even if they seem faceless, they've lost me.
Maybe it would be a good idea to list the elements that turn me off. |
Joy Lee Rutter
Wisdom Member
Post Number:
588
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 07:05 am: | |
"Maybe it would be a good idea to list the elements that turn me off."
What would those be? What repulses you might be considered a part of their charm to some of your readers, Dennis. It's a matter of chemistry. "Faceless" would bore your reader if the creator does not 'see' them.
If you make the list of elements you do not like, you have 2 choices. Kill off the character, or give him/her more exposure and traits that counterbalance whatever's not right. If he stays, it might help to give him features. Give him a history. Get inside his head to seek out his motivators. Why does he repulse you?
In my first book, one of my main characters seemed a little dry, but he was a necessary part of the plot and I wanted him to stand out. He was the mortician and the only one not opposed to fulfilling a dying man's bizarre wish. He needed to be radical, energetic and a little whacky. That was where Kramer came in for me. The guy is impetuous, fun, radical at times to the point of hysteria and whenever he comes on the scene, he does not have to speak to get a laugh. I mentally put his facial expressions, and body language inside my head, complete with the wild hair and came up with Jonathan Wallbrook, my mortician. The fun part about it was you don't expect a mortician to be anything but business-like; dry. Oppositional characteristics sometimes work.
Just my opinions; hope they come close to answering the question...
Joy
http://behlerpublications.com/titles-rutter.asp |
cora morace
Wandering Member
Post Number:
107
Registered: 11-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 06:23 pm: | |
Why did I like Archie Bunker?
Simple, because he reminded me of my father and several uncles who were possibly bigots and chauvinistic morons at their worse. But they valued a hard day's work, the red, white and blue and the "good ol' days". They dreamt of better things for their "little girls" and expected their sons to be men worthy of their respect. I cringed at Archie's blatant expose' of them but admitted my own fondness for them through it.
Not only are characters like Archie personally recognizable they also inspire a confusion of emotions in viewers and readers - amd that is probably the best sign of having created a great character. As example, the classic Scarlet O'Hara. Love her? Hate her? Pity Her? Cheer for her? Readers did all this....and kept turning pages. These characters have depth, and are not always heroes or heroines but are worth reading about.
Just my opinion,
CJ |
Dennis Collins
Mindsight Moderator
Post Number:
1536
Registered: 06-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 07:11 pm: | |
This is getting interesting. My idea of a person who can make me smile without saying a word is George Goebel.
In my first book "The Unreal McCoy," I purposely created a "throwaway" character to be the love interest of one of my protaganists. She's not totally bland but I wanted her to be forgettable because I want my hero to remain unnattached at least for now.
In "Turn Left at September," I wanted my villain to be extremely evil and so I did my best to bring in a wonderful character who would appeal to the reader... and then become a murder victim.
Another experiment in my second book are "test characters," introduced and given a fair amount of flesh. If they generate any interest, they could return in subsequent adventures. |
Fred Dungan
Wisdom Member
Post Number:
992
Registered: 10-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 09:33 pm: | |
I find that new writers (particularly English majors) devote pages to physical descriptions of characters and are lucky to give the reader one or two lines about what is going on within the character. Characters evolve. Necessarily, the experiences you devise for them should have a noticable impact on their lives and personalities. Good fiction is modeled on real life. If your protagonist never has to go to the bathroom, eat dinner, or have normal bodily functions other than sex, then you are missing a great opportunity to have him/her bond with the reader. When is the last time you read a book about someone over the age of 50 in which that character experiences constipation? Seniors spend immense amounts of time and effort to keep themselves regular. Do your characters have second thoughts? Are they moved by events they hear on the news? Most important, are they aware of their limitations and is this communicated to the reader? Don't be afraid to dust off a minor character who made a cameo appearance somewhere earlier in the story and assign him a bigger role. Killing characters off in large numbers isn't a particularly good idea unless you are writing a novel about war or catastrophe. Give your readers full credit for having lived their own lives and gained an understanding of how real people function. Don't insult your reader's intelligence by having your characters behave in ways he knows darn well could not possibly happen. Do give the reader the favor of an epilogue whenever possible to tie up loose ends and give an insight into what it all means in the long run. If this is a sequel, a prologue may be in order for the benefit of those of us who haven't read the other books in the series.
http://www.fdungan.com/vigilantes.htm |
Laurel Johnson
Unity Member
Post Number:
3814
Registered: 01-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 05:39 am: | |
In Archie Bunker we saw the weaknesses, foibles, and racist tendencies at a time when the spotlight had not been shone so brightly on such issues. It had always been Father Knows Best or Leave it to Beaver dads -- infallible. TV changed drastically after Archie Bunker became a hit.
Now we have Ray Barone of Everybody Loves Raymond. Ray has a naieve fumbling bumbling way about him but his traits are not always so admirable. He lies, manipulates, is devotedly self centered and selfish when it comes to his own needs or wants. But as a character he works.
Right now I'm working on a story of my Grandma's life. She lived through tumultuous times and had a quixotic personality. I wanted to show her with all the flaws and strengths she possessed, not glorify her as a perfect person. I tried to incorporate her tendency to judging harshly, her stubbornnes etc. Only time will tell if it worked.
Laurel Johnson
Author: The Grass Dance
The Alley of Wishes
Color of Laughter, Color of Tears
|
Dennis Collins
Mindsight Moderator
Post Number:
1538
Registered: 06-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 07:01 am: | |
Fred makes an excellent point about describing things to death. As you mature as a writer, you do more showing than telling. In my third book I tried to address the age issue with Otis Springfield who is fifty-something. He finishes a conversation on a cell phone and then holds it out at arms length to press the "end-call" button.
Mike Manno did an excellent job with his Parker Noble character when he has him investigating a murder victims belongings and Parker is picking up pennies from the top of a dressing table and examining them. A detective asks what he's looking for and he answers "Wheat Pennies." It tells you so much about this mans quirky personality in just two words.
Interestingly, there's a conversation going on right now over at DorothyL (mystery writers forum) about characters who take you out of a book. The feeling there seems to be that they are normally somewhat peripheral players who are annoying and contribute little or nothing. They sound like perfect Uzi targets to me. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page