What's the key to making a good character?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
What's the key to making a good character?
What's the key to making a good character?
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
|
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Tenacity of purpose
I take 'good' to mean solid here
I want to write characters who are complex, and can be interpreted differently by different readers.
Give them a contradiction.
There's no bee-line to any 'goal,' anon. But goal there must be whether it be to rule the world or to arrive safely at grandma's house. If a character is not determined to do something or to get somewhere then he or she is aimless. This is perhaps what made Kafka so interesting in the early 19th c. --the aim to discover an aim forestalled over and over again via human frailty on the one hand, government obfuscation or risible, if deadly, bureaucratic incompetence OTO
>I take 'good' to mean solid here
What else would you mistake it for?
>le heckin wholesome snugglebunny
>zomg I want them (singular) to crush me in between their (singular) thighs
>must agree with me on all current year issues even though the character lives in medieval Europe
>must agree with me on all current year issues despite living in the antebellum south
>badass independent womxm who don’t need no heckin’ man
Anon, there are many things the average internet idiot could mean by that. However, “compelling” should be the only meaning here
independent womxm who don’t need no heckin’ man
Cringe.
Although, you're suspiciously good in writing up these plebbit stuff.
>>zomg I want them (singular) to crush me in between their (singular) thighs
What does the problem here seems to be, eh, monkey?
I browsed reddit for years before I couldn’t handle it anymore, I know how these people talk.
>the problem
Singular ‘they’ is the most annoying thing about current trends to me, so I wanted to highlight it at least once
>what else
good as opposed to evil
Bad characters can be 'good' characters, too
>Bad characters can be 'good' characters, too
Name 3 (three) characters on which the above statement applies.
Javert in Les Miserables
The Judge in Blood Meridian
Madame de Winter in Three Musketeers
Moriarty in Sherlock Holmes
>The Judge
>Good
Whew, lad. I don't know where to begin.
Good in the sense of solid-- one of which an author may be proud, obviously
>Reading for “character”
You’re in the wrong place
Draw from history and psychology.
This is good advice and what I like to do is base characters off other people's works mixed with irl people and archetypes I encounter
All Frye chuds must be caught,& brought back under lock and key.
have a nice day
Having a good theme
A character is only as good as their position relative to the theme
Characters are more impressive if they seem to have independent existence, i.e. if we can easily imagine them in a setting far removed from the original work. (Think of Falstaff as a present-day university lecturer, for example.)
So, to create them, just do the reverse. Find someone from real life (or elsewhere) and displace him by a few millenia or a continent or two. You want a talented leader doomed by egotism for your space opera? There's Napoleon right there in the history books. No-one will realize it's him, when he's surrounded by FTL drives, genetically-engineered catgirls and terrifying malevolent AIs.