CREW 120:
UNIT THREE: CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT
"Poetry is made of language; fiction is made of people": so goes the old--and accurate--saying. If we wish to write stories well, we have to learn how to create convincing, complex, and interesting characters.
There are essentially two ways to create a character: diegetically, by telling the reader who and what the character is; and mimetically, by showing the characters' behaviours and letting us eavesdrop on his or her speeches or thoughts. Obviously, the second of these methods is likely to have more dramatic impact than the first; it is also more "realistic" and convincing in that it allows the reader to do the interpreting. We are all naturally suspicious of second-hand accounts: we don't necessarily believe what we hear about people from others, preferring the "see for ourselves" and to "make up our own minds". Still, writers use versions of both methods of characterization and frequently combine the two methods in the creation of one character.
I. Types of Character
A. "Round" and "flat" characters
The novelist E.M. Forster categorized fictional characters as being either "round" or "flat". Round characters are developed "in the round"; that is, we can see their complexities and contradictions. To continue the visual metaphor, we might say that we can see "different sides" of someone's personality. Flat characters, conversely, are depicted as always embodying one characteristic, personality trait, role, or function. There's a relationship between genre and the "flatness" or "roundness" of the characters. Myth, satire, romance, and melodrama tend toward the use of relatively "flat" characters, even in major roles. Realism depends on the depiction of psychologically-complex "round" characters.
Most realistic stories involve both round and flat characters. The round characters occupy centre stage: unless the story is a short fable, the main character is probably "round", and there may be one or two other characters who are sufficiently developed that we can see their complexities and contradictions to some degree. Other characters will simply serve a limited function and not de developed "in the round": the desk clerk in the hotel where the main character stays may be sketched in as a generic character (the typical desk clerk), or he or she may be presented as a unique and even eccentric figure to add colour and interest to the story.
Too many "round" characters will tend to crowd a story and make it difficult for
the reader to empathize with a particular central character. Organizing the
characters in a story is a little like painting a group of figures in a scene:
one or too will be portrayed in the foreground and become the focus of the
viewers interest; others will be background figures, diminished by perspective,
shadow, etc.
B. Static and dynamic characters
Static characters do not change during the course of the story. They learn
nothing important about themselves and they do not substantially change their
opinions of the other characters. Dynamic characters, on the other hand, are
capable of change, growth, and insight. The main characters of realistic
stories are usually (for obvious reasons) dynamic characters.
C. Normative Character(s)
A Normative character exists to embody the values of the reader’s culture: he or she is the character whom the reader would consider “normal” and with whom the reader would thus be likely to empathize. If the main character is relatively unique or eccentric, it's logical to provide a normative character, someone we can relate to easily. It's also a common technique to have the normative character tell the story. Having a normative character tell us about a fascinating, self-destructive, eccentric friend or relative is a standard way of doing business. Somerset Maugham and Scott Fitzgerald constructed stories around just that premise, and so have plenty of more recent writers.
D. Sympathetic Characters
Fiction allows readers to see the characters as if they were real people. Our enjoyment of a story is founded on our willingness to accept characters as real and to sympathize with their problems and aspirations. A sympathetic character is one to whom our sympathies are drawn: usually, the main character of a story is also the sympathetic character.
It's notoriously difficult to write a successful story that doesn't have a sympathetic character or that has a main character who does not elicit our sympathy.
E. Foil characters (aka "parallel" or "contrasting" characters)
A foil character is a character who resembles but is to some degree different from the main character. Stories are very often built around the use of these parallel or contrasting characters. It's much easier to reveal a character's personality by contrasting him or her with another character than it is to develop the character in isolation. The importance of using foil characters can't be overstated: characters are representations of "real" people; they are also, however, structural elements within the "architecture" of the story. You can build your story around a set of parallel or contrasting characters.
F. "Off-stage" Characters
In addition to the characters who populate the scenes of the story, there may also be characters who don't actually appear in any scenes but who are referred to by the narrator or by the "on-stage" characters, typically in dialogue. Obviously, most of the important characters should be "on-stage" and interacting with the other characters. Characters who are important to backstory can sometimes simply be referred to and thus remain "off-stage".
The reason for placing some characters "off-stage" is simple: putting too many characters into a scene crowds the action and makes it difficult for the reader to tell who and what is important; simply referring to the minor characters can solve this problem. Also, some characters only play a role in the backstory, not in the primary narrative. Unless we wish to develop backstory scenes, the easiest way to deal with these characters is to refer to them rather than representing them. For example, our main character may have inherited a business from her parents, and the parents efforts to build up that business may be relevant to the plot of the story; we may not, however, wish to devote paragraphs or even pages to dramatizing the parents' lives, so we may simply refer to them in exposition or possibly in dialogue.
G. Catalysts
In some stories, a minor character will provide the impetus for the main character to come to a crucial decision or realization and thus to resolve the conflict. It isn't the catalyst's own actions of decisions that determine the outcome of the plot; he or she simply provides a context for the main character's climactic decision or revelation. His or her advice or example may help the main character to see his or her situation more clearly, or the catalyst may force a wavering main character to confront the central conflict in his or her life.
H. Stereotypes
A stereotype is a flat character who is intended to represent a group or culture: the ditzy waitress, the gregarious salesman, the nerdy intellectual, etc. Stereotypical characters can function effectively in minor roles, but they are often a sign of bad writing and they may reflect a prejudice or narrow-mindedness on the part of the author.
II. Methods of character development
Characters are usually developed gradually throughout the narrative. The process involves supplying "character indicators" at various points in the story. A character indictor might be something the character says (or how he or she says it), an action, a lack of sympathy for another's characters problems, or something as simple as a way of dressing, a gesture, a preference in food or hobbies.
As is often the case, we can learn quite a bit about how to develop characters in fiction by considering how we get to know people in life. Developing a character in fiction is often similar to getting to know someone. Your first impression (and subsequent understanding) of a new acquaintance may come from any or all of the following possibilities:
1. appearance (attraction/repulsion, grooming, stature, apparent health, dress,
age)
2. dialogue: what we say (and do not say) reveals our character to others; so
the way we say it (accent, dialect, slang, formality, etc.)
3. body language (demeanor, stance, gestures, personal space)
4. opinions and judgment (his/her opinion of others)
5. reputation (other characters' opinion of him/her)
6. actions/behavior (dramatic presentation)
Is who we are reflected in our behavior? Most of us would assume that the
answer to this question is "Yes". In that sense, our actions reveal our
character. Paradoxically, it may also be true that our character determines our
actions. The novelist Henry James was exploring this paradox when he asked,
"What is character but the determination of incident? What is incident but the
illustration of character?" There is, however, a question of emphasis which
springs from James' epigram: some stories may emphasize one half of the paradox,
some the other. In myth, for example, character exists for the sake of action;
in psychological realism, action exits to illustrate character.
As well, writers can make use of some techniques that we can't use in day-to-day life, such as
1.) Narrative access to character's consciousness This is a useful technique, but it can cause problems. Spending too much time inside the character's head can be boring: a little goes a very long way. Some writers will also try to use the character's thoughts as a way of interpreting the story for the reader or of preaching about politics or religion or whatever. That method turns the character into a puppet and a mouthpiece for the author's opinions. There's also a small mechanical problem with reporting the character's thoughts. You either have to use intrusive tags such as "she thought" or you have to put the thoughts into italics, which is also a little intrusive and which can be confusing.
2.) Character's name and function. Some stories include figures whose names reveal their personality. Obviously, this method usually only works with flat characters, but it can be used subtly in a more realistic context. Charles Dickens used these "emblematic" names frequently in his novels. In Bleak House, for example, we encounter characters named "Smallweed", "Lady Dedlock", "Skinpole", "Snagsby", "Tangle", "Bucket", and "Clam".
III. Characterization and Motivation
Characters can't just appear and act in a certain way; we have to understand why the character acts in that way. The easiest way to establish motivation is by analogy: if a character is capable of one act of kindness or cruelty, he or she may be capable of other, similar acts.
IV. Common Problems in Characterization
A. Inconsistent characterization
If a character changes, we have to understand what made him or her change. A character cannot be cruel and uncaring one minute and generous and sympathetic the next unless we've made the reasons for the transformation clear to the reader.
B. Implausible characters
Characters have to seem plausible in the context of the story. A mutant with telekinetic powers might work perfectly in the context of a sci-fi story, but that character would be absurd and distracting in a work of realistic literary fiction. Conversely, portraying a psychologically-complex figure in a melodrama such as a suspense novel might not work either. You have to make the character fit the genre.
C. Too many characters
A common problem with short stories is an over-abundance of characters. In a short story, a couple of major characters is usually enough. Other characters should usually be minor, "flat" characters who perform a specific function or who are part of the background. Too many names will be confusing to readers, and too many people will clutter the scenes.
It's a good idea, by the way, to avoid giving your characters similar names. Names that are too similar will blur in the readers' minds and make it more difficult for the readers to differentiate between characters. Getting a clear sense of who's who in a story is difficult enough for readers; don't make the task even more trying by giving characters similar names.
D. Too few characters
Quite a few stories are built around two or three characters. It's difficult, however, to build a story around just one character. There's no opportunity for interaction, no dialogue, and probably little occasion for dramatic action. Writing a story with one character is like painting a picture in one colour: it's possible, but it's difficult and probably not a good idea.
E. Disappearing characters
If a character is important to the beginning of a narrative, he or she should probably be important to the end of the story as well. Characters who simply wander out of the plot leave readers feeling unsatisfied and confused. If a character dies or leaves (and that event is crucial to the plot) then he or she could be replaced by a similar or contrasting character so that the pattern of important figures remains the same.
F. "Pop-up" characters
Just as it's important not to let major characters wander out of the story, it's also important not to introduce a new major character late in the plot. This is particularly crucial in a short story, where the major elements, including characters, almost always have to be introduced early in the narrative.
G. "Deus ex machina" characters
An extreme form of the "pop-up" character is the person who appears at the end of the story in order to resolve the conflict. The sudden, inexplicable appearance of a god-like personage who can solve the main character's problems is a fatal flaw in any story. This problematic character is called the "deus ex machina". (The term was originally used to denote the technique of lowering an actor onto the stage with a crane, a device employed in the ancient Greek theatre. This actor would portray a god or hero who appeared at the end of the play--the "god out of the machine.")
H. Nameless characters
Name your characters right away. The standard formula for a short story lead goes like this: start with the main character's name, then show us him or her doing something. Providing the reader with the character's name makes it easier for the reader to visualize and empathize with the character, and it also prevents the confusion that can arise from referring to more than one character as "he" or "she". This sort of "pronoun fog" is extremely irritating and usually completely unnecessary.