How do you do it? Do you write a short scene with them? Do you write a bio? Do you roll a D20 character and base them off that?
Inquiring minds must know!
For me, everything generally starts with a scene in my head, which is how the character is born.
From there, I start playing out more scenes in my head, seeing how they'd react, how they'd talk, how'd they interact with other characters, and really trying to get into their head to see how they think. In a way it's a bit like acting - trying to become the character to some degree to flesh them out and turn them into a real being. I may not use those scenes in the end, but they give me insight into the character none the less.
Once I have the personality down and if I have a good handle on ;em, the characters almost write themselves, I just throw them into a situation and step back. :)
To add to GG's very useful social-drama metaphor, I would offer that I also try to position characters within the history of literature (as I develop them) to determine their difference, which is to say their possibly valuable contribution to that history. For instance, I might envision an independent female character whose thoughts and actions are couched in language that might typically (historically) be used to describe male characters, and then alternate with descriptions more typically applied to female characters (just to keep readers on their toes). At the same time, this woman might demonstrate rather conservative ideas about gender and might openly advocate traditional gender roles for others while blindly transgressing those limits herself. I wouldn't claim any originality in such an endeavour, but the point would be to determine her difference from herself and other characters in the process of developing her personality, behaviour, etc., while bearing in mind various character types drawn from the history of literature.
ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and Fop o' th' Morning
Most of my characters are somehow initially inspired by other people or characters that I've enjoyed seeing or reading about, and are built up from there. Having a breadth of exposure to different people, whether real or fictional, helps give me a much better understanding of what makes characters fun and engaging.
For example, those who have read my work may recall one of my favorite villains, Volker Hilfgaart. Volker Hilfgaart is (at first glance) a charming old man of Germanic or Eastern European ancestry, who maintains an old bookshop, and has a prodigious knowledge of all things arcane and mystic. Readers come to realize that he's a very careful schemer and manipulator, whose ultimate goals are never fully understood.
This character was initially inspired by a couple of characters played by Swedish actor Max von Sydow - Leland Gaunt in the movie adaptation of "Needful Things," and the director of operations in "Minority Report." In both instances, I have reference to the basic framework of a character that I found engrossing to watch - an apparently kind, elegant old man who actually is a masterful behind-the-scenes manipulator.
Of course, this leads into another tactic that I use when writing. If you can imagine another actor playing the part of the character that you're writing, then that makes it much easier to write descriptive details.
Interesting... I see some familiar techniques, but they're mostly foreign to me.
I start with an idea, usually a one line premise. "What would a single mom with superpowers really do?" From there, I'll usually try to run the character through a question sheet. There's a million of them online and I'm currently using this one (http://"http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dfwshdzz_1dwr4kdd2"). Generally speaking, I'll only actually answer five or six questions to get a taste.
Once I have an idea of how the character behaves and what their motivations are, then I'll run through a Meyers-Briggs (http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp) test in-character. This is the single most important part of my creative process, because it gives me feedback on a character's personality, based on their (theoretical) actions. While the result is important, what's more important is the refinement process I go through. "Is this really how this guy would act?" I may set the character aside for a couple days and retake the test with a fresh mind. The results rarely change.
At this point, I go back to the questionnaire and start filling out the stuff I skipped. This usually results in writing short biographies about close relations, friends and the character himself. As the sheet fills up, and this is where I start to go insane, the character "speaks" to me. I hear one-liners they might say, conversations, monologues, situations. I start writing these down at the bottom of the character questionnaire. This cements their personality in my mind, as well as their voice. Around this time frame, I start to get an idea of the character's look. Quick keyword searches of Google Images and Flickr give me ideas for the character's sense of style. Behavioral traits (health food freak, marathon runner, alcoholic) give me an idea of the character's body type.
Once I have the personality, voice and look in my mind, I place the character within the story.
Anyway, this thread was meant as an open dialog. My own technique is flawed in it's dependance on serendipity. I don't find characters, they find me. Once the idea passes out of my head, there's very little chance I'll come up with it again. I'm still refining the process. :unsure: Feel free to ask questions, cause that's what I'm gonna do starting...
NOW.
Quote from: Glitch Girl on August 07, 2008, 07:14:14 AMFrom there, I start playing out more scenes in my head, seeing how they'd react, how they'd talk, how'd they interact with other characters, and really trying to get into their head to see how they think. In a way it's a bit like acting - trying to become the character to some degree to flesh them out and turn them into a real being. I may not use those scenes in the end, but they give me insight into the character none the less.
Do you write these sample scenes out or just put them through various situations mentally? Do you usually have a finalized situation for your story in mind when you develop the characters, or is character development an independent thought process?
Quote from: ow_tiobe_sb on August 07, 2008, 08:03:55 AM
To add to GG's very useful social-drama metaphor, I would offer that I also try to position characters within the history of literature (as I develop them) to determine their difference, which is to say their possibly valuable contribution to that history. For instance, I might envision an independent female character whose thoughts and actions are couched in language that might typically (historically) be used to describe male characters, and then alternate with descriptions more typically applied to female characters (just to keep readers on their toes). At the same time, this woman might demonstrate rather conservative ideas about gender and might openly advocate traditional gender roles for others while blindly transgressing those limits herself.
I'm confused You're saying you develop your characters personalities by using non-traditional techniques to describe who they are? Or do you develop them by differentiating them from your other characters? I also don't understand what you mean by "History of Literature." Are you referring to the worlds in which you place your characters or within literature as a whole?
Quote from: Viking on August 07, 2008, 10:01:19 AM
Most of my characters are somehow initially inspired by other people or characters that I've enjoyed seeing or reading about, and are built up from there. Having a breadth of exposure to different people, whether real or fictional, helps give me a much better understanding of what makes characters fun and engaging.
So the basis of your character development is literary archetypes? Do you ever find yourself restricted, or worry about being derivative?
And one final question for all three of you; how do you develop their look? Is this readily apparent to you when pen reaches paper, or do you go through a process for that too?
Quote from: Midnight on August 07, 2008, 02:06:32 PM
Quote from: ow_tiobe_sb on August 07, 2008, 08:03:55 AM
To add to GG's very useful social-drama metaphor, I would offer that I also try to position characters within the history of literature (as I develop them) to determine their difference, which is to say their possibly valuable contribution to that history. For instance, I might envision an independent female character whose thoughts and actions are couched in language that might typically (historically) be used to describe male characters, and then alternate with descriptions more typically applied to female characters (just to keep readers on their toes). At the same time, this woman might demonstrate rather conservative ideas about gender and might openly advocate traditional gender roles for others while blindly transgressing those limits herself.
I'm confused You're saying you develop your characters personalities by using non-traditional techniques to describe who they are? Or do you develop them by differentiating them from your other characters? I also don't understand what you mean by "History of Literature." Are you referring to the worlds in which you place your characters or within literature as a whole?
I apologise for being unclear, Middy (there's a surprise, eh what?). I wouldn't say my methods are necessarily non-traditional, but I do try to determine what character types or exempla I might want to blend together to develop round characters. I do try to develop those characters by differentiating them from other characters who have, IMO, made major contributions to "literature as a whole." For instance, I might hold together in my mind Louise Erdrich's inimitable Fleur Pillager from
Tracks, James Joyce's candidly transgressive Molly Bloom from
Ulysses, and Gustave Flaubert's vexed Emma Bovary from
Madame Bovary; then I might develop a female character with hints of all these characters who might also possess contradictory traits. In this way, the character I develop would also begin to differ from herself. My intention would be to offer to the reader a character with various points of entry (forgive the penetration metaphor) for various audiences who also poses something of a challenge to the reader: namely, how does one resolve these contradictions (which may be irresolvable), or, perhaps more productively, what type of commentary on human psychology/behaviour and sociology do these contradictions suggest? I try to make my speakers'/narrators' diction reveal and reinforce my characters' traits by developing unobtrusive descriptive motifs that help to establish the characters in the reader's mind through subtle accretion. I'm almost positive this sounds foolish and tedious to others, but you did ask.
For characters' appearances, I like to play with readers' possible expectations and the concept of WYSIWYG. Taking some cues from Wilde, I like to develop characters who are neither hermetically sealed vessels (i.e., those who lead an unknowable interior life) nor open books. Consequently, I might develop a character who appears to have sinister intentions (and he does) because he looks sinister; however, he appears sinister because he is cloying, a situation that sets up an attraction-repulsion relationship. At the same time, the character may prove not to be the sum of his sinister intentions, and perhaps some aspect of him--be it his chin, his eyes, his elbows (:huh:) what have you--has achieved a virtuous balance that is aesthetically pleasing and provides some hint of his non-monolithic personality. To put it another way, I try to develop characters' appearances that operate as two-way mirrors to the soul might: both revealing and concealing, perhaps revealing as much about the reader as they conceal. Again, I'm almost positive this sounds foolish and tedious, but you did ask.
In more practical terms, I do do a good deal of note taking and revision, as well as (re)reading (others' writing) as I write.
ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and Fop o' th' Morning
Quote from: Midnight on August 07, 2008, 02:06:32 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 07, 2008, 10:01:19 AM
Most of my characters are somehow initially inspired by other people or characters that I've enjoyed seeing or reading about, and are built up from there. Having a breadth of exposure to different people, whether real or fictional, helps give me a much better understanding of what makes characters fun and engaging.
So the basis of your character development is literary archetypes? Do you ever find yourself restricted, or worry about being derivative?
And one final question for all three of you; how do you develop their look? Is this readily apparent to you when pen reaches paper, or do you go through a process for that too?
The basis is not necessarily
literary archetypes. Inspiration can come from personages either real or fictional. The late comedian Chris Farley once explained the initial source of his "Motivational Speaker" character on Saturday Night Live - he based it on memories of his father.
I'm generally not too worried about being limited, or too derivative. That's part of what having a broad repertoire of experience is about, and not sticking to one archetype too slavishly. The archetype is simply a frame on which to hang additional details that make the character your own.
As for developing the "look" - I'll admit that's one of the toughest challenges that I face each time I sit down to write about characters. I can't always actually visualize what the character looks like. Heck - for that matter, many literary works that I read don't actually dedicate copious amounts of detail to physical character description. Rather, they keep enough descriptors so that the reader can fill in the blanks, should he wish to do so.
Generally, I suppose I try to simply stick with the descriptive details that seem most important to the character. And if I can envision a particular actor or actress in the role, I describe the details that stick out in my memory of the actor/actress.
Quote from: Midnight
Quote from: Glitch Girl on August 07, 2008, 07:14:14 AMFrom there, I start playing out more scenes in my head, seeing how they'd react, how they'd talk, how'd they interact with other characters, and really trying to get into their head to see how they think. In a way it's a bit like acting - trying to become the character to some degree to flesh them out and turn them into a real being. I may not use those scenes in the end, but they give me insight into the character none the less.
Do you write these sample scenes out or just put them through various situations mentally? Do you usually have a finalized situation for your story in mind when you develop the characters, or is character development an independent thought process?
Primarily mental on the outset. Most scenes play out in my head in a very "visual" manner, almost cinematic (I am a very visual thinker) and sometimes what looks good up here
[points at head] doesn't always translate here
[points at typing]. Sometimes that's the challenge in and of itself, distilling the images and words into just words.
I'd say the character development is integral to the story process. I rarely come up with just a character without some story or background. The setting and events shape them as much as vice versa - everything affects everything to some degree. Their stories can evolve (like my own avatar's has over time) but there's usually SOME narrative driving their creation.
I'm liking this thread, really facinating.
Quote from: ow_tiobe_sb on August 07, 2008, 06:46:05 PM*snip* (Just scroll up or click the trackback link you lazy mugs!)
Sounds like a very complex process, but let's see if I understand this; you basically take character traits from important literary characters and stitch them together, contradictions be-damned because real people are full of contradictions.
Assuming that this true, do you choose sets of traits having a rough idea of what the resulting character will be, or is the final character always the result of this creative process?
Your technique has this fascinating and peculiar sense of... balance. Is this intentional?
Quote from: Viking on August 07, 2008, 10:00:15 PMI'm generally not too worried about being limited, or too derivative. That's part of what having a broad repertoire of experience is about, and not sticking to one archetype too slavishly. The archetype is simply a frame on which to hang additional details that make the character your own.
Okay, I kind of get it now. I ask these questions becauseI used to use archetypes myself. My own creations from this timeframe are rather pale and lifeless so I was wondering how your characters end up being so multidimensional.
This will probably sound like a stupid question but once you have the basis of your character, how do you go about hanging the additional details on them?
Quote from: Glitch Girl on August 08, 2008, 06:20:33 AM*snip 'cause I'm taking a different tack*
What kind of situations do you run these characters through specifically?
Quote from: Midnight on August 08, 2008, 10:14:39 AM
Sounds like a very complex process, but let's see if I understand this; you basically take character traits from important literary characters and stitch them together, contradictions be-damned because real people are full of contradictions. Assuming that this true, do you choose sets of traits having a rough idea of what the resulting character will be, or is the final character always the result of this creative process?
Aye, I would agree with much of your restatement. I would clarify, however, that the developed/developing characters' immanent contradictions may be the result of my rhapsodic composition OR a further admixture of warring traits that I have set at odds to dress the rascal in her/his motley cap and bells. This preliminary plan provides a general trajectory for characterisation; however, the words that weave those descriptive motifs I mentioned place the final strokes on the characters' traits (William Carlos Williams once wrote "No ideas but in things," so the matter of words will provide the mind of my text.). I prefer not to limit my characters to overarching and, ultimately, fractious abstractions; rather, like an (unpolished :oops:) improvisational jazz musician (who is a mere illusion, for s/he thinks in rearrangeable paragraphs instead of sentences, staying ahead of the game instead of apparently living in the moment), I prefer to develop a riff using my general blueprints for the characters and then see where the song takes me. I like to think of this method as a frank acceptance of the fact that the text, in the end, will never be my own--nor will it ever be wholly the reader's--but a supple medium filled with well-planned chance encounters, haphazard certainties, and practiced spontaneity.
Quote from: Midnight on August 08, 2008, 10:14:39 AM
Your technique has this fascinating and peculiar sense of... balance. Is this intentional?
Just call me the Accidental Aristotelian. ;)
ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and Fop o' th' Morning
Quote from: Midnight on August 08, 2008, 10:14:39 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 07, 2008, 10:00:15 PMI'm generally not too worried about being limited, or too derivative. That's part of what having a broad repertoire of experience is about, and not sticking to one archetype too slavishly. The archetype is simply a frame on which to hang additional details that make the character your own.
Okay, I kind of get it now. I ask these questions becauseI used to use archetypes myself. My own creations from this timeframe are rather pale and lifeless so I was wondering how your characters end up being so multidimensional.
This will probably sound like a stupid question but once you have the basis of your character, how do you go about hanging the additional details on them?
Not a stupid question. Not everything is inherently obvious to all people - that's why they have questions.
The answer goes back to my basic philosophy - have a broad exposure to elements that you want to pick and choose from. It's hard to come up with ideas in a vaccuum - having actually
seen things helps you to visualize them better. This seems to parallel one of ow_tiobe_sb's suggestions, which you have recently paraphrased: stitch together character traits from various other characters.
As an example, let's look at Volker Hilfgaart again. The "frame" came from the character of Leland Gaunt from Stephen King's
Needful Things: Leland was a shopkeeper in a small town, and he dealt in antiques of all sorts. Well, I didn't so much want an antique dealer for the story I was writing, so I mused over other bits of things I had seen in literature and media. I recalled an episode of the TV show
Angel, where the lead character gets some assistance from an occult bookdealer. I remember that the character Ray Stentz, in
Ghostbusters II, had opened up an occult bookstore. The character Giles, on
Buffy the Vampire Slayer was a charming fatherly figure who served as the librarian in the Sunnydale High School... So making Hilfgaart the proprietor of a bookshop seemed to fit the goals of making Hilfgaart seem both knowledgeable and charming.
Then there were other details. I almost always describe Hilfgaart as having a pipe - this is inspired from the character of Gandalf from the
Fellowship of the Ring movie. Once again, the image of Ian McKellan as a friendly, old, pipe-smoking wizard is pretty iconic, and I found that image charming. I don't describe the pipe in much further detail - but it's the simple matter of leisurely smoking from the pipe that adds to the charm.
And then there's the running gag of Volker having an urn that he uses to produce tea, coffee, hot chocolate... whatever the situation requires. In another short story, he simply performed a minor magic trick of manipulating other people's teapots to produce different blends of tea, in short order. This is a combination of one of Direwolf's minor characters (the elderly Chinese gentleman whose name I forget, but who serves Imperial Gunpowder tea in one of DW's stories), with a trick used by Mary Poppins in the Disney movie of the same name. (Where Mary Poppins pours out medicine from a bottle into three large teaspoons, and each teaspoon gets a different flavor and color tailored perfectly to the one who gets to swallow it.)
I believe I also describe Volker as having a tattered hat and trenchcoat for those occasions when he's left his bookshop - those are simply my own additions, which I felt helped give Volker an aged, down-to-earth feel.
In essence, my characters are a combination of elements that I, personally, find cool and memorable. Some of them may be inspired from other sources, while others may come from my own inspiration. As I'm developing the character, I try to let my mind wander until I feel that I've gathered enough details to make the character writeable.
Interesting thread.
Myself, I suppose I tend to cobble together a character in a more freestyle fashion (when I have time to actually write anything). I take bits and pieces of other characters I've read/seen and blend liberally with my own notions. But I would say that my characters basically all start with a single idea and I extrapolate from there. All of my main characters definitely carry some part of myself... an element of my own personality or perhaps a reflection of my own fears and desires.
Looking at some of my past characters...
William Powers: He was a Freedom-Force inspired character. The single idea that formed everything else about him was that he was a strong-willed person who was used to manipulating things to get his way. An Energy-X infusion caused him to literally be able to enforce his will on anything he could touch. Ironically, he himself was usually a slave to outside circumstances and influences. The storyline surrounding him involved his continuing efforts to control his own destiny.
Fred Klotz: Another Freedom-Force inspired character, with heavy influences of "The Greatest American Hero". He's basically a bland, accident-prone klutz who accidentally gets empowered with unreliable superpowers and partnered against his will with a shapechanging suit made of sentient fabric. He's another victim of circumstance, bumbling his way through the incredible situations he's confronted with. He prevails over his problems despite his ineptitude, mostly through dumb luck and the occasional flash of insight. He has also been an outlet for my own strange sense of humor.
Astragirl: This one was inspired by City of Heroes and an Anne McCaffery story from the Pegasus series. She is paralyzed in an attack by some monster and her telekinetic abilities are unlocked, allowing her to project a telekinetic construct as an extension of herself. Her injuries imprison her body, but her powers free her mind and allow her to interact with the world outside her room.
Another character I developed was a cybernetic spaceship brain. Supposedly mutated monkey brains were cybernetically enhanced to allow them to be a control interface between human thought waves and a spaceship's navigation system. (I know, shades of 'The Ship Who Sang' by Anne McCaffery) The 'idea' behind this one was that the brains were really harvested from political dissidents (humans) of the Terran regime. This particular cyberbrain begins to awaken to its' self after a modification of the interface with his pilot. Unfortunately I never got around to writing that revelation into the story.
I think that once I have a general idea of my character's personality and abilities, the real development comes in the interaction with other characters and events. My characters both lead and are led by the plot as it develops. I'm not afraid to tweak things as I go; none of my characters are set in stone until the story's done.
My process for creating characters isn't set in stone. The weirdest things can spark characters in my mind and I can't sit back and just explain it to you. It's more or less a case by case basis for me. However, I'll try to explain a technique or two I have used.
Usually, I have an idea for a story before I even attempt the characters. I have to make sure the idea is something solid and one that I'll actually work on for more than a day before I even think up characters to fit into the situation. When the story idea is situated/finalized, I sit back and just open my mind. In that state, I get a lot of random ideas and I tend to write them down. Eventually, I have several ideas and traits that I begin to mash together and a character is formed. I'll assume this isn't an answer you want, so I'll move on to a few methods I used on my last few characters starting with the latest.
Richard Lynx: This is a character from my fanfic challenge entry, but I wrote him and most of his main traits a year or two ago. He's just been on the backburner. Someone challenged me to write a more humorous character. I considered it and I began to pick out traits and skills a humorous character would have. I also made him a bit selfish and immature as I found those to be two traits I could use to show character progression. Other details like his ethnicity, age, and voice came later after I wrote a few (let's say 8 or so) one paragraph to two page samples to get a feel of his character. He eventually got two friends who would tie into his story and be a contrast to him as well. One would be his crush and the other would be his frienemy (friend/enemy). He got one more friend, an older character, that he could basically relate to, but wasn't a major component of the story. Once all of that was done, I just threw him into my idea and imagined how he would act and react to the situations...the rest basically wrote itself.
The current incarnation of him, from the fanfic challenge, is much different though. He's more "real". He's nowhere near as selfish or driven as his previous form, nor is he as funny, but now he's more thoughtful and caring. He's also a much better thinker and he still has his once-in-awhile sarcastic/funny comments. His old incarnation wouldn't fit into the story I wanted to tell, but his supporting gallery fit in fine enough.
Marshal Moresy, Kenny Clarkson, and Lancer: Three characters in one, but I used the same technique for these three. These characters were created for a story I haven't shown here, but they're pretty standard. The story involved an evil mutant attacking a school to reach a kid and use him as bait. Considering the setting was a school in a world where mutants weren't accepted at all and were also feared and were graded on their threat levels, I knew the main character and the target would be kids. I made them young kids that were old enough to recognize and get out of danger, but young enough to still be outsmarted and unsure of what to do in their situation. Marshal, the main character who injected himself into the situation, was based on someone I actually know, but different. I knew he would be a smart kid with psychic based powers. In his world, his ability would be very rare and he wasn't accepted by his peers because he was weird. This, I assumed, would make him an outsider, but he would feel superior to his peers even if they didn't know it. Ultimately, he just wanted to be accepted and he would do things to try and get that acceptance. He was also a bit of a smart arse. Kenny, the target, wasn't going to be anything special at all really, but he began to grow on his own. Kenny was just a cool kid that was the son of a politician. He was known for his good deeds and popularity status and he didn't really know Marshal at all (to the point where he was embarrassed and amused when Marshal spoke to him in the halls). However, he began to take on negative traits throughout the story that I could use to differentiate him from and cause friction with Marshal. These things materialized on their own and I didn't really sit about planning them out. Lancer, the big bad of part one, was the easiest character to create for me. I based him on a standard thug with an 80s gang look. I don't know why I chose that, but that's how I immediately imagined him. As the bad guy, I knew he'd have more negative traits shown in part one than positives, but I made him a tragic villain. I created a backstory for him before I even wrote his first appearance in the story. He had a rough background and very low education. In fact, I'd describe him as the brilliant idiot. He can seem very bright at points in the story and then he'll seem dumb later on when his guard is down. He swears a lot and he's really dedicated to honoring his brother.
So, what I'm saying is, I didn't plan out any of the traits for those characters, they just appeared when I considered their situations. I also imagined how they might be in real life under their circumstances and, really, it helps to "act" them out sometimes as they'll say and do things you wouldn't imagine when you're actually trying to plan it out. Oh, I should note that these characters and the story were picking fun at some elements found in certain movies/stories such as in the horror genre.
Finally,
Larsu and the Wizard: My most unique and weirdest character before "Edina" were these two. They're two characters from my writing exercises that I gave no pre-thought to at all. They just formed through dialogue writing...which was what I was practicing. I'll explain. Shh.
*note: I think I was rereading Macbeth when I started this exercise*
In order to strengthen my dialog and character skills, i decided to identify two characters only through dialogue alone while still telling a story. This was tough at first, but I eventually got it down by page 3 on day 3 (a page a day). As I got better, I began to add in the customary descriptions and eventually made my way back to regular story form when I added more characters. That's the background, now let's get to the characters.
Wizard: He was the first character to speak in the exercise. Since I have an affinity for magic based characters, I knew he would be the lead. I wanted to try and tackle a character that went in a direction, career wise (ha), he wasn't particularly meant for. The wizard identifies himself as a failure in the first line of the story. With this out of the way, it was just a matter of giving him other traits that could be used to bring him up and prove his worth. By his 6th line, he was shown as having humility and considered his servant, Larsu, to be on his level instead of beneath him. Larsu and the Wizard had a brotherly bond and I worked with that to the best of my ability. The wizard became the straight man with a dedication to his goal and Larsu became his mysterious helper who had an "acid"/witty tongue. By the end of page 1, both characters were defined enough to take them through a few more stories without much effort. In fact, in a page most of their traits shined through and I just built from there.
Larsu: Before I even started writing for him, the only thing I knew for sure was that he would be the servant. Everything else happened on the fly. He was the witty funny man that offered his master wise advice. He cared so much for the Wizard that he couldn't stand to see him down and he was always looking out for the Wizard's best interest. Once I realized all of this, it was just a matter of expanding it in the next few chapters and Larsu eventually grew into a character that could survive without the presence of the Wizard.
So, there you go. Several different characters and a few different techniques. I will say that I don't make a habit of planning out too much about the character because I find that to be restricting on my part. I more or less let the story, environment, and the character's background affect me more so than anything else.
I usually design a character, fill in the details, and go from there.
Prem, Bard, you two have a similar philosophy in that you allow the story to develop the characters. Do you ever find yourselves wanting to go back and alter the character as the story evolves? Or does the character evolve within the storyline?
Quote from: AfghanAnt on August 09, 2008, 02:58:00 PM
I usually design a character, fill in the details, and go from there.
So you start with the look of the character; Are the characters' personality and behavior a direct result of what they look like or do you have these traits in mind before you start?
Going back to the design itself, when you develop a character's look, is it serendipity or do you start with a design process and worktowards a concept (American patriot, gritty street hero, cosmic power)?
Quote from: Midnight on August 09, 2008, 06:06:20 PM
Prem, Bard, you two have a similar philosophy in that you allow the story to develop the characters. Do you ever find yourselves wanting to go back and alter the character as the story evolves? Or does the character evolve within the storyline?
Not really. If I ever feel that way, it'll be within the first three or four pages of a story. it's more or less a feeling I have when I can't connect to a character which is why Richard/Blue Lightning was rerolled for Yuan's challenge. Otherwise, I just allow them to grow within the story. Though, during my editing stages, I may change a few things about them that I don't think fits into the story anymore or I no longer agree with.
Quote from: Midnight on August 09, 2008, 06:06:20 PM
Prem, Bard, you two have a similar philosophy in that you allow the story to develop the characters. Do you ever find yourselves wanting to go back and alter the character as the story evolves? Or does the character evolve within the storyline?
Both.
My creative process is very story/reader oriented.
I may alter some details during the course of writing. I'm not afraid to go back and rework small portions of my story to fit something I thought of later, and I often do. (Though I'm lazy enough that large re-writes probably won't happen.)
The one thing I have rarely done is to alter anything that I've already posted (although even this rule gets bent a wee bit in my attempts at interactive fiction). My philosophy of writing is that I want my stories to be enjoyed by other readers. Once the story has been 'released', as far as I am concerned it is set in stone. To do otherwise risks confusing the reader and thereby spoiling their enjoyment. I tend to edit and re-edit before I post anything, so I'm not terribly worried that I'll publish total dreck.
I have found that I usually need to work from a plot outline to get anything done. I may tweak that outline as I go, but in general it will be close to my initial outline, perhaps with more detail or minor changes but essentially the same. My characters will evolve within that plot. On occasion, the writing takes me to a place where I need to change my plot... maybe even the climax. Those are the times when the character evolves the plot rather than the other way around.
Storytelling is sort of like joke-telling, IMO. How you get to the punchline may change but the punchline rarely does. But when it does, it's worth it.
Probably the most interesting and entertaining story I've ever done was a collaboration between myself, Direwolf, and Viking. We wrote a very long Freedom Force fanfic... it took us about a year to finish it! The characterization in that story was static in the sense that we were working with already established characters. But it gave us a rich framework with which to hang our own ideas upon and we did evolve the characters through that story in very interesting ways. I would also say that we evolved our plotline as we were writing it. We knew we wanted to finish with a great battle royale, but the plot was complex enough that it was very challenging to tie all of the threads together. I think we did a good job of it in the end.
SOrry it took a while to get back to this...
Quote from: Midnight on August 08, 2008, 10:14:39 AM
Quote from: Glitch Girl on August 08, 2008, 06:20:33 AM*snip 'cause I'm taking a different tack*
What kind of situations do you run these characters through specifically?
Usually contextual situations, dependant on their setting. Most of the time it's very dialogue based. Since this is a written media, often I find conversation (even internal) is more character defining than physical traits or descriptions. I end up applying a lot of the stuff I learned taking improv classes as a kid to this portion of the process like sensory recall for example and just general observations on human behavior.
I'll be honest, I don't think I'm very deep when it comes to creative process - I basically start with an idea, ask myself "why" a lot (like "why would character A do this?" "Why does the baddie want to destroy the city?" "Why does character A care?" ) and let the results carry me along. If I can "see" it clearly, I feel I'm on the right track and if I am, the words just flow.
I... I... I got no more questions. :wacko:
Also, there's a Needful Things down the street from my work.
I'm probably one of the worst people at creating characters ever, because I'm constantly changing who the character is if I develop him/her and discover they're no fun to write. A lot of development occurs outside the stories themselves. A technique I enjoy is asking what the character thinks of themselves--who they are, what they want, etc. Then figure out what their lovers think of them, their friends, their parents, and especially their enemies. Different characters get shaped in different ways. Powerhouse is a superstrong former bodyguard who I gave anger issues when I tied steroids into his origin. Speedstress's heroic side emerged from her bratty, spoiled exterior primarily after I realized she needed some redeeming feature, since the concept was funny (rich girl uses powers to get revenge on neglectful crime lord father; still carries over her snotty attitude in the team she's in), but while writing she was funny for a few lines and quickly got very annoying.
A BIG thing for me is creating characters with opportunities for growth, and then writing stories that allow me to explore their development. Unresolvable conflicts are good for this, too. Above characters: Powerhouse has to resolve his anger issues before he tears apart the team, Spreedstress learns that heroism is a worthwhile pursuit in its own right. A character I've wanted to write for awhile but have been a little concerned with doing is an extremely bigoted, racist superhero. He's a decent guy outside of that, and when he's interacting with his family or friends he's a saint. But if you're black or Jewish or Hispanic, you're subhuman to him. I don't know if he'd ignore cries for help from the targets of his bigotry or treat them like monkeys. That kind of dichotomy is utterly fascinating.
Grem,
You could do your 'racist hero' (sounds like a real dichotomy, doesn't it?) by making him patronizing as opposed to outright abusive. You can even play it for laughs if he doesn't understand why people get angry with him for his patronizing attitude.
(racist to black detective): "Gee, golly! I didn't realize any of you people were on the force!"
(black detective): "Whaat?!"
(racist): "Good for you, Detective! It must have been hard for you, coming out of a gang and all that, eh?"
(black detective): "What the @%$#% makes you think I was in a gang, you @#@$#!!!"
(racist): "You didn't?"
(black detective to white officer, angrily): "Tell this @#$*& to stay out of my investigation! (Stalks off)
(racist to white officer, whispering): "Did I say something wrong?"
You can take risks with humor that you don't dare touch otherwise. The object, of course, would be to show how racism still persists in our society and to illustrate why it's wrong. Unless you're deliberately trying to offend, which I would not endorse in any way, shape, or form.
BlueBard raises a very good point, Gremlin. And when it comes to portraying a racist or prejudiced "hero," I can think of two separate portrayals that I've seen in animated media.
The first is a brief portrayal that fits into the mold that BlueBard was describing. It was an episode of the Justice League, in which several Justice League members are transported to a world that's more or less a replica of the golden-age comic books of their own world. In one scene, the Caucasian golden-age Green Guardsman teams up with the black, modern-age Green Lantern (John Stewart). John explains his deductive reasoning in predicting where the next crime will take place, and...
Green Guardsman: Good thinking! You're a credit to your people, son!
John Stewart: (shocked look of, "Did you say what I think you just said?") Uh... thanks.
The second is dramatically different, and comes from the Teen Titans animated series. There's an episode in which a galatic military-type shows up seeking the Teen Titans' assistance in a matter, but he's horribly prejudiced towards the members of Starfire's race. He constantly refers to Starfire as "Trog," which is apparently incredibly offensive to Starfire, but the other members of the team don't initially realize it. Of course, to the viewer, it's still blatantly obvious that this military-type is being racist and offensive to Starfire. In the meantime, he's heaping praise on the other team members, who are lapping it up. (Makes me wonder why the other Titans were being so blind to the guy's mannerisms and such, but hey - it's how they did the story.) By the end of the episode, the other Titans realize what a racist jerk the military-type is, and tell him to take a hike.
I think there's an important characterization portrayal lesson to be learned, there. When a character's prejudices are due to nigh-impenetrable cluelessness, but are not willful, it can be played for laughs, and the character can remain sympathetic to the audience. However, if he's willfully racist and offensive to a group, treating them as 'subhuman,' he's pretty much a villain.
After all - plenty of villains can have lofty goals, and yet still be pretty despicable villains because of their blatant prejudices. Dr. Doom is a key example - I remember reading an old comic book in which he planned to research a cure to cancer for the benefit of humanity... by using the homeless as unwilling medical test subjects.
Let's face it. If you describe someone who is a saint to friends and family, but treats blacks, Hispanics, and Jewish people as if they're subhumans, you're describing a World War II Nazi.
The object wouldn't be to offend, really, but Viking makes a great point about how that's similar to a Nazi. I guess I'm not playing him as a sympathetic character. Sympathy isn't what I'm going for. I guess it's more of a character exercise than a commentary on racism in modern society. I use a lot of political themes in my writing, and I kind of wanted to use it to show my token conservative that he's not the most racially sensitive guy while showing my token liberal that the token conservative isn't a racist. Plus, I wanted to give my token black guy the opportunity to pass up a fight he doesn't need to have (he's the guy with the anger issues, Powerhouse).
What are some other interesting dichotomies you've toyed with in character creation? OTB mentioned the powerful female figure who endorses classical women's roles. What have you used?
Oh, I have a generic question to ask to everyone here that has to deal with developing characters. How does everyone here create the main character's supporting cast? And by extension, how do you create their environment/setting?
There's one dichotomy that I feel that I've used in several of my villains and/or morally dark grey characters. Namely, the dichotomy of the character not really showing much in the way of power, physical or otherwise, but still being incredibly dangerous and influential. It sprang from a desire to play with this kernel of an idea: Sometimes the most dangerous villains are just ordinary people.
Dr. Leo Drake was my first foray into this venture. He's a brilliant scientist who is somewhat amoral about finding field-testing opportunities for his inventions, and who firmly believes that ordinary humans need to push the envelope of weapons research to stay competitive with metahumans after the discovery of Energy X in the Freedom Force universe. Si vis pacem, para bellum - If you would have peace, prepare for war.
Wolfgang Hilfgaart was the next variation on this theme. Thus far, in his appearances in my stories, he's appeared to be an old man who knows an awful lot about magic, despite using very little of it himself. But he's very good at manipulating others into doing what he wants, while looking like he just wants to help all the while.
Richard King the Third was my most recent creation. He's pretty much an inversion of Professor X from the Marvel universe - the crippled headmaster of a school that trains young heroes in the use of their powers for the good of society. Unlike Charles Xavier, however, he shows no signs of having any special powers like telepathy. But he's a masterful strategist and behind-the-scenes politician, and a bastard off of the royal line. As headmaster of a prestigious university, this allows him to shape the impressionable young minds of college-age kids and position them in influential places of power in his home country.
Quote from: Previsionary on August 18, 2008, 11:20:25 PM
Oh, I have a generic question to ask to everyone here that has to deal with developing characters. How does everyone here create the main character's supporting cast? And by extension, how do you create their environment/setting?
Well, environment and setting necessarily have to be plot-driven. You can't ask a shrub how it feels to be part of the scenery. The setting has to convey the general mood of the story.
Take Gotham City, for example. The setting is meant to evoke an element of fear. It's meant to look like a scary place where you can never be sure what's lurking around the corner or up on the rooftop. It does so with the gothic-influenced architecture, the dark streets, and infamous places such as Arkham.
The flip side of that is Metropolis. It's a busy, modern place and it's supposed to idealize American civilization. It's a place of optimism and progress.
Both cities are a reflection of their protector, in a way. In one sense, the cities are a part of the supporting cast.
I believe that a supporting cast has three functions. One, to provide the interactions that establish the personality of the main character(s). Two, to further the storyline. Three, to support the whim or agenda of the author. Let me explain what I mean by that.
The author may wish to include elements that are not necessarily directly related to either the story or the characterization of the main characters. For example, a supporting character may provide a moment of comic relief in an otherwise serious and dramatic story. Or they could be used to make a philosophical statement that the author wishes to make apart from the actual story itself. They may be used in a single scene or may be part of a sub-plot that moves through several scenes.
So, creating a supporting cast is driven by (at least) these three elements. In general, these characters are going to fit into certain stereotypes but with some identifying feature or quirk that makes them seem more like a real person. Some characters exist only to further the storyline and are never seen again. Some characters are closely linked with a main character and you can expect to see them in future stories involving that main character; their development is connected with the development of the main character.
Since these aren't real people, the author is probably going to use a stereotypical character. Someone you can basically identify in two or three words. (egotistical jock, spoiled socialite, nosy reporter, etc.) Sometimes you're lucky enough to know a real person who represents a character you'd like to include and you base some of the character's traits on that person. More complex characters may need a whole sentence or two to describe.
Once you've got the frame for that character, you need to make them seem real unless they're basically just more scenery (an extra, if you will). You have to give them some powerfully identifying feature or trait. And that, my friends, is more the art of writing than the science of writing. But don't take a lot of time developing characters that aren't a vital part of the plot or the main characters' personal history.
I'll second BlueBard's assessment of describing supporting characters. More detail is generally best saved for your main characters. Supporting characters are well-served with short descriptions of their most readily identifiable traits. If you start going into too much detail, your reader may suspect that you're developing another main character.
I'll admit that one of my greatest weaknesses as a writer is in describing the environment and setting. Writing works best when it's stuff that you know and/or can visualize. The greater your exposure to scenery and experiences, the more that you're equipped to compellingly narrate. All too often, I wrestle with the simple problem that I don't visualize settings that well. In real life, I don't spend a lot of time paying attention to the details of my surroundings. For that matter, I often gloss over those descriptions in books that I read.
So, when I come back to writing a story, and realize that I need to describe the surroundings, I often come to a complete stop and start agonizing over details. Sometimes I'll end up pulling a book off of the shelf and start flipping through it to start getting ideas on how other authors describe scenes. If I'm lucky, the author will be describing a setting close to that which I'm using.
After further reflection, I have a question of my own regarding a style of character near and dear to my heart... the villain. I've designed most of my villains with the following quote in mind:
"The most dangerous villains are those that we can like and admire. The most terrifying villains are those that we can become."
I don't know the original source of the quote - I heard it from a good friend, who in turn heard it from someone else. But it resonates.
Villains are incredibly important in stories. They generate conflict. They help define the heroes. And they can be incredibly fascinating in their own right. Lots of great villains are layered - they have their own motivations and reasons for their actions. Often, their motivations are understandable and make them sympathetic.
And yet... sometimes, there are villains that do not show signs of being sympathetic, and yet are mesmerizing to watch. Darth Vader (prior to showing his backstory in the prequel episodes of I, II, and III). Doctor Doom. Lex Luthor. The Joker. These guys range the gamut from egotistical to arrogant to psychotic. So why do people find them so darn cool?
Villains are just a form of antagonist in the literary sense, so certain basic elements will apply.
The one thing that an antagonist needs above all else is to be a credible threat to the protagonist. Without that, any conflict is going to be very weak. All the villains you mentioned are exactly that -- a credible threat. Sometimes they win. Never permanently, but there's always a question.
The second thing that an antagonist needs is some unique, rare, or incredible feature that makes them memorable. It need not be a visible feature. It might simply be a unique style and personality that makes the antagonist stand out.
In the superhero genre, the best villains are both credible threats to the heroes and they are especially memorable not because of their looks or powers but because of how they behave.
Darth Vader wouldn't have been nearly as good a villain if James Earl Jones hadn't voiced him. Plus he had that whole breathing apparatus thing to make him seem even more menacing. Apart from that, he's just a creepy guy in black armor.
Lex Luthor works as a villain not because he has any powers (which he doesn't) but because he's extremely smart, extremely shrewd, and extremely ruthless. Even then, he wouldn't be that great a villain except that he's also very smooth... able to put a veneer of charm over the rest of the bad news.
Doctor Doom is a great villain because he's also a tragic figure and, in his own unique way, a regal one.
In addiction to what BB said, I'm gonna point out that the villains you listed aren't any of my faves and they're just there for me, but that mostly has to do with the heroes/protags attached to them. Yes, hero attachment affects how much I actually enjoy most villains.
The Joker, however, is more or less a different story. I enjoy him because he's just so oddball. He's all over the place and can be played for laughs or be completely insane and menacing with his sick and wicked plots. You never know what to really expect from him whenever he appears and that's an aspect of his character I find enjoyable because I can usually expect something new from him every time he happens to show up.
Now, for some other examples of villains I tend to find enjoyable:
Kefka (FF6): He's like Joker. He's insane and utterly ruthless with all his oddball schemes. In fact, Kefka is basically the "Joker" of the FF world with powers and a weird taste for red lipstick.
Magneto (X-men): I used to enjoy him because he didn't believe himself to be evil. He only wanted to do what was right for his race and he always had to deal with the X-men. He did have his moments of remorse and eventually became good and...most of that was undone in one way or another.
Loki (Thor): It's more current Loki more so than anything. She's constantly causing trouble just for her sake and she seems to always be working for an ulterior motive even when she *seems* to be doing something good. I guess her motivations interest me more so than anything else.
And...I really don't get attached to many villains. I mean, I can enjoy them in stories, but I rarely get attached to them. The ones I do tend to like are mostly for superficial reasons...go figure. Though their motivations, creativity, and "reasons for being/existing" also tie into that somewhere.
Quote from: Viking on August 19, 2008, 11:56:02 AM
"The most dangerous villains are those that we can like and admire. The most terrifying villains are those that we can become."
I don't know the original source of the quote - I heard it from a good friend, who in turn heard it from someone else. But it resonates.
Right! The next person who uses the word "resonates" within a non-acoustical context gets a short, sharp thrashing, cane-style! (J/k, Viking. ;) My undergraduates use the term far too often in their papers because they believe, mistakenly, that it makes them sound sophisticated.)
Quote from: Viking on August 19, 2008, 11:56:02 AMAnd yet... sometimes, there are villains that do not show signs of being sympathetic, and yet are mesmerizing to watch. Darth Vader (prior to showing his backstory in the prequel episodes of I, II, and III). Doctor Doom. Lex Luthor. The Joker. These guys range the gamut from egotistical to arrogant to psychotic. So why do people find them so darn cool?
In my opinion, unsympathetic villains (not necessarily those you've mentioned) prove fascinating due to their nihilistic tendencies. I would compare their appeal to that of the train wreck to the eye witness: these villains' actions do a sudden (often repeated, yet often aleatory) violence to the established social/ethical discourse that affords no ready neutralisation within that established discourse's analytical framework. In other words, nihilistic villains operate outside the coping mechanisms of the dominant social order ("We cannot pigeonhole this enemy! What does he want? Why does he do what he does? How do we stop him?") and thereby (at least temporarily) interrupts that system. Villains of this sort tend to be capricious, relentless (unless relenting suits their current impulse), savage (in the sense of being opposed to a civilised order without necessarily being vicious or
uncivilised in his methods), and inexplicable. These villains present us with a glimpse of an uncanny, ineffable, human sublime: a terrible void that unnervingly stares into the observer, who, though disturbed by the phenomenon, nevertheless wishes the sensation to continue.
Of course, if Jean Baudrillard (in "On Nihilism" from
Simulacra and Simulation) can be trusted, post-industrial society
does possess coping mechanisms for this sort of nihilism, for the simulacral order itself is systemically nihilistic and always ready to neutralise and deter nihilists who are, themselves, already merely the graffitied façade of a nihilistic architecture. However, I would counter that, in praxis, the dominant discourses at hand in both daily life and in fiction often do not operate within the type of playing field Baudrillard describes, and they often limit themselves to a more modernist or postmodernist sensibility, which was/is preoccupied with "the destruction of appearances [...] in the service of meaning" or "the destruction of meaning," respectively. Therefore, we can still be fascinated by villains who destroy Wall Street because they believe those financial institutions to be built upon an ancient Native American burial ground or villains who simply destroy without aim. (Of course, Baudrillard would counter that this fascination of which I speak is a symptom of the simulacral order's nihilism...)
Benoît in
Man Bites Dog comes to mind as a villain who approaches the nihilism that I have described; however, he is not a perfect example, often providing at least plausible explanations for some of his actions. Another imperfect example might be protagonist/antagonist (the way Bertolt Brecht played with his alienation effect, who knows how to classify him?) George Garga from
Im Dickicht der Städte (
In the Jungle of Cities). The Joker, as written by David Goyer and the Nolan brothers, comes very close to this sort of nihilism, but he falls short when he reveals his gaming aesthetic to Batman (which, however, may prove to be just another one of The Joker's various narratives). I suppose the best example would be any terrorist without a cause, the sort of character who is hard to come by in RL.
ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and Fop o' th' Morning
Quote from: ow_tiobe_sb on August 20, 2008, 12:54:19 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 19, 2008, 11:56:02 AM
"The most dangerous villains are those that we can like and admire. The most terrifying villains are those that we can become."
I don't know the original source of the quote - I heard it from a good friend, who in turn heard it from someone else. But it resonates.
Right! The next person who uses the word "resonates" within a non-acoustical context gets a short, sharp thrashing, cane-style! (J/k, Viking. ;) My undergraduates use the term far too often in their papers because they believe, mistakenly, that it makes them sound sophisticated.)
Well, the American Heritage Dictionary
does provide the following definitions for "resonate":
To evoke a feeling of shared emotion or belief: "It is a demonology [that] seems to resonate among secular and religious voters alike"
To correspond closely or harmoniously: "Symbolism matters, especially if the symbols resonate with the larger message"
There was absolutely nothing incorrect about your usage, Viking. My students rely on the word so often that I've become absolutely tired of hearing it used in that context. :banghead: No foul, however, on your part. :)
ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and Fop o' th' Morning
Quote from: ow_tiobe_sb on August 20, 2008, 12:54:19 PMIn my opinion, unsympathetic villains (not necessarily those you've mentioned) prove fascinating due to their nihilistic tendencies. I would compare their appeal to that of the train wreck to the eye witness: these villains' actions do a sudden (often repeated, yet often aleatory) violence to the established social/ethical discourse that affords no ready neutralisation within that established discourse's analytical framework. In other words, nihilistic villains operate outside the coping mechanisms of the dominant social order ("We cannot pigeonhole this enemy! What does he want? Why does he do what he does? How do we stop him?") and thereby (at least temporarily) interrupts that system. Villains of this sort tend to be capricious, relentless (unless relenting suits their current impulse), savage (in the sense of being opposed to a civilised order without necessarily being vicious or uncivilised in his methods), and inexplicable. These villains present us with a glimpse of an uncanny, ineffable, human sublime: a terrible void that unnervingly stares into the observer, who, though disturbed by the phenomenon, nevertheless wishes the sensation to continue.
Of course, if Jean Baudrillard (in "On Nihilism" from Simulacra and Simulation) can be trusted, post-industrial society does possess coping mechanisms for this sort of nihilism, for the simulacral order itself is systemically nihilistic and always ready to neutralise and deter nihilists who are, themselves, already merely the graffitied façade of a nihilistic architecture. However, I would counter that, in praxis, the dominant discourses at hand in both daily life and in fiction often do not operate within the type of playing field Baudrillard describes, and they often limit themselves to a more modernist or postmodernist sensibility, which was/is preoccupied with "the destruction of appearances [...] in the service of meaning" or "the destruction of meaning," respectively. Therefore, we can still be fascinated by villains who destroy Wall Street because they believe those financial institutions to be built upon an ancient Native American burial ground or villains who simply destroy without aim. (Of course, Baudrillard would counter that this fascination of which I speak is a symptom of the simulacral order's nihilism...)
OTB, you're far too well read for your own good. :P I don't say that because it's a bad thing...but just because now you're going to suffer from an endless barrage of questions.
How, precisely, does Baudrillard claim such an individual is curbed? Through the use of individuals who use similar methods but align themselves differently? What is the "playing field [he] describes," precisely? Modern/postmodern society in reality or fiction? Or the conflicts themselves?
By the by, what do you teach and where?
Villains are almost always my favorite characters to write. What's
really fun are evil mirror versions of good characters. Subverting somebody's past to transform them into evil characters is a tremendous challenge, but very rewarding.
Take my Patriotman. He has an evil clone in another universe named Riot. Where PM is a Christian conservative patriot, Riot is an antitheist/nihilist anarchist. Their pasts are identical in virtually every way, but while PM saw his combat wounds as his badge of honor for a life served for his country, Riot saw his pain as needless and unneccessary suffering brought upon him by a vicious impirical government. While PM jumped on the chance to serve the ideals of his nation again, Riot saw the opportunity for revenge. The parallels between them give me a lot of opportunity to question the ideals of both characters, and the ideals of all the characters around them.
[OT]I've taken my reply to Gremlin to PM to avoid flooding this thread with tedious digressions.[/OT]
ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and Fop o' th' Morning
Quote from: ow_tiobe_sb on August 21, 2008, 07:18:23 AM
[OT]I've taken my reply to Gremlin to PM to avoid flooding this thread with tedious digressions.[/OT]
ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and Fop o' th' Morning
Good plan.
You lost me pretty near the beginning of that last digression.
But then again I'm an uncultured non-collegiate computer geek, so it's to be expected. ;)
I totally wanted to push this thread even further but work has not allowed me time to read it fully. :( Keep asking questions, keep the discussion going!
u need 3 things
a brain, unlimited imagination and creativity. ;)
Quote from: Raijin on September 13, 2008, 07:38:32 PM
u need 3 things
a brain, unlimited imagination and creativity. ;)
I'm more concerned with methods.
Quote from: Midnight on August 09, 2008, 06:06:20 PM
So you start with the look of the character; Are the characters' personality and behavior a direct result of what they look like or do you have these traits in mind before you start?
Going back to the design itself, when you develop a character's look, is it serendipity or do you start with a design process and worktowards a concept (American patriot, gritty street hero, cosmic power)?
Yes the personality is a direct result of the design for me.
Serenipity mostly, I'll take a word or random string of them (Afghan Ant), concept I read about (Bat-Boy from World News Weekly), or image (http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=65451&rendTypeId=4) and built from there. When I'm design I try to pull in certain elements from the source but a lot of the overall design is organic. I'm a huge fan of asymmetry in character design so a lot of my design start as scribbles.
Well, when I develop a character I first come up with a name. Usually it's something that just feels right and causes me to create an automatic picture of what they look like in my head. Now of course, I usually start developing the villian of a piece before creating the main character. From there, the mental pic usually gives away alot about the character's mentality. Whether it be a clenched fist or a grimace or such, it just seems to build automatically without any real work on my part. I will though usually run them through a few situations not involved in the stroy jsut to see how they react but not much more. From there I just toss the character in whatever the plot is and let them run free with it, seeing who they bring into the mix that needs to be fleshed out and such as I go. It's almost like once the name is decided the character builds themselves and take on a life of their own when I write.
{edit: boy, do I knwo how to kill a thread}