A post at Writer Unboxed: What Makes People (and Characters) Interesting?
Well, what DOES make characters interesting? (I don’t really care what makes actual people interesting.)
It’s all very well to say, “The character is complex!” I expect that’s what the linked post is going to say, and it’s not untrue, but it’s unhelpful, and this is making me think that the actual question isn’t phrased as it should be.
What makes a character sympathetic?
Oh, wait, that’s not the right question either.
What makes a character engaging?
There you go, that’s what I think is the right question. I mean, we can think of characters who aren’t at all complex, who may not even be interesting in the sense we’d normally use the term, but who are nevertheless highly engaging. I mean … Superman. There you go. He’s a very straightforward type of character, and also has zero character development. Even his backstory is boring. Happy childhood, nice parents, straight to a job he likes, never changes jobs, what in this is remotely interesting? Yes, yes, saves the world all the time, but I mean the backstory and the character are both quite simple. If Superman is engaging, it’s not because the character is interesting in the sense of being hard to understand or complex. Sympathetic, yes, sure.
In contrast, how about … oh … Hannibal Lecter. Interesting, yes. Sympathetic and engaging are then in the eye of the beholder. For me, NO. For plenty of viewers, YES. As far as I’m concerned, the most interesting thing about the movie Hannibal is that the screenwriters and director tried to make Hannibal sympathetic by making all the characters who could have been good guys into petty, venal, incompetent, unpleasant people. In contrast, Hannibal is suave and competent, so he must be sympathetic, right? He’s the guy you’re supposed to root for, yes? And this is, as I say, interesting as a way to manipulate the audience, BUT, it is also repulsive. It shows how to make a complicated but horrible character sympathetic and engaging for at least a pretty large share of viewers.
I’m betting the linked post is going to be all about “Make him complex! Make his backstory complex! Bring the reader into the character’s head because you can’t help but sympathize with a character you understand and relate to!”
This is wrong, because you can absolutely decline to sympathize with a character you understand. Plus, it isn’t great to feel like you can relate to Hannibal Lector. He’s not the only character like this, either. But I do think this is probably what the linked post is going to say. Let’s just take a look and see …
Ah ha! It’s all about understanding the character’s motivations! It’s getting into the character’s head!
It occurred to me then that it’s not our doing – our shenanigans, stunts, and schemes–that make us interesting. It’s our wanting – our needs, longing, and thirst – that make us interesting, especially when that thing we want isn’t easily gettable. Or, when the thing we think we want is not the thing we need. …
If I am to build stories filled with characters who grab and hold fast to a reader’s attention, I need to study people, real and fictional, who hold my attention: ordinary people fueled by their mess and their passion, their desire to satisfy their needs, fill their emptiness, and mend bits of their brokenness.
What do you think?
I think: good job including “fictional” as well as “real” when mentioning that you should study people. Fictional characters tend to be bigger than real people — quicker-witted, braver or more cowardly, more selfless or more selfish. You take real qualities and exaggerate them a bit. You do that because you want to create characters who are admirable or despicable, one or the other, because either is the antithesis of boring AND because people — real people, readers — want to admire heroes and boo villains. Not every possible reader, I suppose, but a lot of readers, emphatically including me.
Fueled by mess and passion, not really. Fill their emptiness, not really. Do we have to mend brokenness to create a compelling character? Obviously not. I’m sure we can think of any number of characters who don’t start off broken and then mend their brokenness.
Cassandra in the Touchstone trilogy. Mark Watney in The Martian. Torin Kerr in the Valor series. Honor Harrington in that series. Rowen in The Steerswoman series. There are just absolute heaps of characters who start off competent and confident and go on from there. Sinowa inGara and Marag inKarano too, of course.
Personally, I really appreciate characters who start off thoroughly competent and confident and have some other arc that doesn’t involve becoming competent or confident. I’m sure there are a lot more than I didn’t mention above. Who’s YOUR favorite character who is confident and competent right from the get-go, and who therefore goes right through the story without mending any particular brokenness?
Please Feel Free to Share:
Jane Brailsford in A College of Magics by Caroline Stevermer (and its sequel A Scholar of Magics, but in the first book her matter-of-fact competence is a plot point and neatly supports the broken protagonist’s efforts to mend herself).
+ 1 to Jane Brailsford!
I think Victoria Goddard’s main characters almost always start off with their own particular areas of competence, although usually not confidence. Martha Wells’ main characters likewise (although some are confident as well as competent).
This also made me think of some of Pratchett’s competent and confident characters, like Captain Carrot, Granny Weatherwax, Moist von Lipwig, etc. (I love the silly names. I think most human names are pretty silly once you know what they mean…)
Aside from most of yours – I’d say all, but Tano as I remember him in his first story wasn’t – My mind certainly went to Pratchett. And the others mentioned already. Janny Wurts’ Arithon (she finished the twelfth volume this year, and i really should find time to reread from the beginning. I *think* she stuck the landing.) Wei Wuxian from the Chinese Mo Dao Zu Shi/Founder of Demonic Cultivation. CJC .. that human in the Mri trilogy, Duncan, was competent in what he does, his problem is in what he gets thrown into. Which is a lot of how to have a sense of an arc without necessarily fixing brokenness or moral character growth or whatever. CJC does that a lot Someone else just came and went through my memory…. oh, right the POV of her Paladin.
Goku from Dragonball – the Teen wanted to revisit old memories. It held up and I enjoyed it, for the most part. The Crane school characters also have a very good, reasonably subtle redemption arc in the second season, while showing up very confident and competent – the sting is they hadn’t realized they were being trained unethically and to be assassins (or something). Their arc is coming to realize that. Also in anime or manga, Lelouch vi Britannia, raised a prince till exile at ten. At eighteen acquires a magic and set out to restructure the world to one his wheelchair-bound and blind little sister could thrive in. Succeeds at the cost of his own life. Starts confident, flirts with megalomania, but he is an actor who knows he needs to put on confidence so I’m not sure.
I am intrigued by characters who are repairing brokenness of some kind, most often when it’s balanced by competence in other ways. But it’s not the only way to interest me.
Both competence and confidence: both Rathe and Eslingen in the Astreiant books. I agree that many of Pratchett’s characters fall in that category, and also many of Victoria Goddard’s.
As I was looking for examples in my recent reading, I see that I like characters who have competence and have confidence within a certain sphere, but are dropped into new circumstances where they aren’t sure how their competence applies. For example, Moon in Martha Wells’s Raksura books. Aelis in The Warden and sequels, Dr Greta Helsing, Daniskos in Sword Dance. Dan Mackmain in the Green Man series.
Tano stands out because he begins with neither competence nor confidence, but he *wants*. At first, just survival, but then to acquire competence and recognition.
Other characters I like watching develop competence: Penric. Maia in The Goblin Emperor. Perhaps Peter in the Rivers of London series. Often they are interesting because of the relationships they develop, and those in turn feed their competence.
The Teen throws in Edward Elric, Fullmetal Alchemist for competent, confident characters. What he has to learn is that there are things he can’t do. Also several other characters from that manga & anime.
Adds about Lelouch vi Brittania: The current state of the world as arranged by their father the Emperor of 2/3 of the globe, is one where she’s an acceptable target. Think Darwinist.
Cefwyn, whose arc is learning to have a friend.
Tiarnan deservedly confident and competent, but also several moments of mediocre judgement, one of spectacularly bad judgement which is how he winds up spending most of the book as a wolf. (bradshaw’s Wolf Hunt)
Kane of Axis & Kane whose arc is learning that she can’t have everything. (Alphabet of Thorns)
Prince Corwin of Amber.
Prince Conrad of Fabylon who has to learn emotional competence. At practical things. he’s good he’s been avoiding emotional anything for years due to bad examples in the family.
Shen Yuan at least as portrayed in Cultivating the Slow Life.
A lot of mystery books have protagonists who competent and stay that way.
Teen here:
Kane Blueriver of lost Universe (tv show, 1990s). He does have a nadir in which you could argue he’s broken and in need of fixing- but since he’s also being prayed upon by a psychic vampire/dark lord who built this trap for him and set him up for it from the moment of their first encounter, I don’t hold it against him. (Hard to follow if you’re only watching the show. It’s in a shared universe with another series and almost all metaphysics carry over. Lost universe’s English dub doesn’t stop to explain any of this, but to a viewer who knows The Slayers in both anime and original novels, it’s there).
Regarding the Cranes of Dragon Ball. They’re not from the second season, they’re from the second tournament arc. Not sure how that falls in a seasonal division. They knew they were assassins in training. They also valued honor. And they were an interesting mix of confident in themselves and arrogant in their power. What they didn’t realize was that their teachers only paid lip-service to it- it’s gradual exposure to the real thing in the form of their master’s old co-student, his pupils, and the way they act- plus recognition of their own capabilities, and a good deal more small things.
Two major moments were when one of them realized he’d had no hope of winning his semi-finals match- despite what the spectators believed. No chance at all. But his enemy conceded, despite having the winning hand.
And their own master said that the foe in question had conceded because he couldn’t face a public loss. That shook Tien. (The more active Crane.) Later it is his master’s lack of belief in Tien’s own skill and repeated sabotage of his final opponent that throws a wedge between them forever. I don’t have any way to tell you where the arrogance in their power faded out, but by the end of that tournament, it had. Interesting watching.
Artemis Fowl the Second is the last one I can think of. He’s- well. He was designed as Bond Villain, minus the cat, at twelve years old. I guess his arc is becoming less villainous? He’s confidant ins spades, and mostly deserves it- but when things go wrong for him, they go WRONG.
It’s actually very common in urban fantasy and romantasy, very uncommon in paranormal romance or romantic suspense. In urban fantasy, there’s the power up, skill development arc and the adventure/relationship arc. Either the character begins as a null becomes very strong or they start strong. Depends on if the progression/hero’s journey is the point. A lot of times, the main character is very strong and gets stronger, and the relationship/social growth is more important. Ilona Andrews, Jim Butcher, Jennifer Estep, TA White, Kim Harrison, even Patricia Briggs’ series… all very competent, really strong main characters who grow rich in social ways and by making connections, gaining position and learning more about their world. The skills sort of follow.
I have fewer favorites where the main character isn’t competent. I mean, it happens often enough, but it’s a different type of story that relies on different beats and an arc to work. Michelle Sagara’s Elantra series is probably the best urban fantasy series with a protagonist who… isn’t necessarily competent, depending on what you mean, and nor does she have a typical skill progression arc. She’s never irritated me, though, ’cause she’s just very intuitive and not helpless or overly emotional. I think it’s not so much that I need constant competence porn but rather it irritates me when a character makes endless stupid self-defeating decisions. I also wouldn’t call Kaylin unconfident? It’s not black or white. Hmm.
She’s got no way to really learn the relevant skills except very gradual experience. The way her magic works, it’s not obvious what’s really going on even when it’s happening. She’s also young and new at her day job. She did slack off from some magic lessons, but they’re in the ‘useful in the future but not directly relevant’ category. Maybe Kaylin is just in a category of her own? haha
Many of Bujold’s characters in the Vorkosigan series too – Cordelia, Aral, Lady Alys – actually when I think about it probably most of her characters are both engaging and competent.
Bren in the Foreigner series starts out as competent but is unable to see it and so is not confident – he feels so alone and the stakes are so high, so he’s in a white hot panic the whole time (well he competently recognizes that he is in genuine danger, Iilsidi is scary AF). Later on he’s still competent but gains the confidence to go with it as he’s built his network of allies.
I remember a line in Naomi Novik’s Spinning Silver where one of the character says that something to the effect of “you don’t know if you can do hard things until you’ve done the hard thing”. Maybe some characters start out competent but don’t know it until the story tests them.
Make them complex by giving them wants that can’t be both satisfied in context. Stopping the bad guys and avoiding attention are opposed for the heroine of a WIP
Ilona Andrews’ Innkeeper – Dina – competent, kind and warm-hearted. The other characters (in this series and in other series by the same author) are all very competent as well, it’s more about applying their skills to new challenges and building relationships with each other along the way.
Many of Dick Francis’ characters are competence personified.
Other than yours? I would say Cimorene from Patricia C. Wrede’s “Enchanted Forest” books. She’s competent right from the start. This is brought into focus by how princesses are expected, supposed, and TRAINED to be competent at nothing more interesting than embroidery and dancing… Cimorene, OTOH, thinks magic and fencing (and even juggling) are far more interesting…
I don’t think she changes much during the first two books or the later short story “The Frying Pan of Doom”. She’s competent, assured, and loving it. And I love her.