Tag: characterization

Books

Bloodstained

Autumn

header

I will be discussing spoilers in this post. Consider yourself warned.

For those of you who aren’t familiar with video game culture, there was a series that started clear back in the 80’s called Castlevania. Many people consider the 1997 release, Symphony of the Night, to be the best game in the series (phew, exposition).

74abkmmqyfv11
Alucard

I confess that I have never played Symphony of the Night. All I know is that Alucard is the ultimate gothic pretty boy vampire character.

Anywho, the creator of Castlevania got fed up with video game companies, struck out on his own with Kickstarter, and developed Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night as a spiritual successor.

We played Bloodstained because I was in the mood for something gothic, lol. I’d rate it 4/5.

All right, now here are the spoilers: your character wakes up after a ten year long nap, and discovers that her bff is the villain. He is later revealed as being mind-controlled by a demon, and the excessively helpful blonde woman is outed as being the one who is actually evil. She summons the ultimate demon that you have to fight and kill as the final boss of the game.

And, well, I thought that the story line was the weakest part of the game. It was too obvious and predictable, but teased just enough that I kept hoping it would try something new. It didn’t.

The mind control shtick has passed its sell-by date, in my opinion. Whenever characters act like, “You used to be sooo good, but now you want to kill everyone. What’s going on?” you can bet that it’s because of MIND CONTROL.

I dunno, maybe they were abused and damaged beyond what they could handle. Maybe they realized that society is irredeemably corrupt. Maybe, just maybe, something happened that made them change their mind. Characters are allowed to evolve, and it doesn’t always have to be for the better. Even good characters can have a dark night of the soul.

And the main character… she’s allowed to change too; she doesn’t have to statically believe in black and white forever and ever. Wouldn’t it be wild if, halfway through the game, the main character has an epiphany about pursuing the wrong goals, and forms an alliance with the antagonist? No one would see it coming!

It feels like there’s a big, gaping hole in the middle of storytelling that no one acknowledges, ideas that are never explored because we’re too accustomed to stereotypes.

In this day and age where indie is becoming more and more accessible, what are we afraid of?

About Writing

Character Descriptions

Autumn

The other day I asked my husband, “What the heck does it mean when people describe eyes as ‘almond-shaped’?”

So he pulled up some references on drawing eyes and explained the differences, before grabbing some photographs for me to guess which shape the eyes would be.

I proved that I will never be a visual artist when I described them all as, “eye-shaped.”

A lot of writers describe characters like they’re sitting next to a sketch artist, who wants to know just how wide their forehead is in relation to the height of their nostrils and all that, but personally I’m not visually oriented enough to pull that off. I like to joke that I would make a terrible witness to a crime, because my description would be along the lines of, “He looked like an evil horse, only with fish eyes . . . no, I haven’t the slightest clue how tall he was.”

When I look at someone, I don’t notice many physical details; I think of them in metaphorical and emotional terms instead. That’s why I think that all eyes are ‘eye-shaped,’ but some of them are more fish-like than others.

Everyone is going to picture something different when they visualize my horsey villain, but the mental image will tickle the fancy far more than “long face and wide-set eyes.” I care more about amusement than pedantry when it comes to my craft.

The next time you write a character description, don’t try to force Brad Pitt’s face on all your readers — it’s okay to step back, paint with broad strokes, and say something different. Let your readers choose for themselves what they want to imagine. A story that asks for a little thought in return will be far more engaging than one that spoon-feeds every detail.

2009-10-16-beartato-drawharrisonfrommemory
If I were an artist…

Source

About Writing

On Real People

Autumn

I don’t base any of my characters off of real people, because, frankly, everyone I know is either so normal that it isn’t worth it, or so out there that I wouldn’t know how.

The thing about normal is that once you’ve met one, you’ve met them all. I already know what normal people think about every subject, because they all think and do the same things (quite deliberately, too). Hence, the whole normal part. If I write a normal character, he’s going to be based on the conglomerate of normal behaviors, rather than any specific individual.

Then there are the weirdos, who have wild anecdotes and even wilder beliefs. These are the people who are fun to talk to, because I don’t know what they’ll say or do next. That unpredictable element also makes them impossible to write, because I don’t know what they’ll say or do next. Can’t write what I don’t know.

All of my fictional characters are just that: fictional. I draw heavily from my personal study of psychology, but I never have any specific people in mind.

.

.

.

hqfsa

About Writing

Creating Dynamic Characters: Balancing Depth and Archetypes

Autumn

No one wants to read a novel where half of the characters could be replaced with cardboard cutouts and have no effect on the story, yet so many authors struggle with that very thing; even professional ones. We all know the criticisms of wooden and flat characters who never develop, but what to do about it is not so obvious.

I can tell you though, the answer is probably not found by playing 20 questions with character sheets. You’re writing a person, not a profile.

Me? I turn to nonfiction.

One of my favorite books is Chakras and Their Archetypes by Ambika Wauters, which I highly recommend. It gives a good breakdown of dysfunctional personality types, then contrasts it against what the strong, functional personality looks like. While a person may be weak in one area, they are likely going to be strong in another.

I think that something writers forget is to make their characters internally balanced in some way. Joe may be a maniac bent on power, but he fixes up injured birds in his backyard. Throw in some exposition about the bird bath owned by Mrs. Roberts, who always fed him cookies after his dad beat him up, and the characterization practically writes itself. Why is he bent on power? He hated being helpless and hurt, and thinks that it will protect him. Why does he help injured birds? Because he secretly relates to them, and thinks about the good that Mrs. Roberts had in his life, even if it was just a tiny part. Joe isn’t bad, he’s just badly damaged. Maybe he’ll find redemption, maybe not.

Hey, that wasn’t hard at all.

Archetypes are useful tools. Personally, I think they are a little too one-dimensional to base a character entirely off of one archetype, but combine a few in different areas (a rebel with people, but a caregiver to animals), and you can build some unique and dynamic characters.

 

37c91f41f21099b03149879c39b66d23