#writing complex characters

[jules-writes-stories]

WIP Wednesday Truth: Writing a Morrigan scene and it's a struggle. I'm seeing posts out there about the fandom “suddenly turning on Mor,” and blaming "Eris apologists." But for me, it's this right here:

Third most powerful leader in the NC and she’s done nothing for the Hewn City, allowing Keir to not only go unpunished, but to rule over others (some who must be young, female, queer, poor, and powerless) for centuries.

And SJM wrote plenty of characters who did escape their difficult origins, who returned to help others like themselves. Feyre defended the mortal lands and returned to her village, helping those in need. Nesta spoke in defense of humans at the HL's meeting and went on to train priestesses who survived forms of abuse/oppression. Elain hosted the queens at her Manor House during a literal war, and convinced Grayson to work with the fae, bridging human/fae alliances. Cassian trains Illyrian females and pushes against the warlords in the training camps. And damn it, I can't believe I'm saying it… even Rhys outlawed cutting Illyrian females’ wings and winnowed entire towns of humans to safety before the war with Hybern.

Real question: Has Mor done anything to better the lives of the marginalized in the Court of Nightmares, a territory she has been given by her High Lord to rule over? Help me out here.

Because my read: she escaped and hasn’t looked back since. She even threw a fit at the chance to offer some of them exposure to Velaris, at the possibility that they might come to know something else, maybe find sanctuary of their own...

What’s the point of power if you don’t use it? What’s the point of having the ability to determine Truth if you never bother to tell it? I'm trying to give her a balanced, dynamic role in my story, but it's starting to feel like more than SJM offered her...

[apricuswrites]

I'm really nervous about how one of my main characters will be perceived by readers because while they're complex and consistent with a troubling past, they're also a girl.

[jeannereames]

How do you anticipate Alexandros’s and Hephaistion’s respective ways of dealing with each other in their “moments” to change over the course of your series? I think you pretty clearly established in your books that Hephaistion has to learn to carefully navigate Alexandros’s outbursts and spontaneous tendencies.

On the flip side, I wonder how Alexandros learns how to deal when Hep is angry or upset. Do you think it being more so along the lines of him expecting Hep to suck it up and deal, basically? Or would he take a different route? I just find the way you portrayed their dynamic in the series very intriguing and nuanced, and I'm curious to see how it might evolve as the characters age.

What an interesting question! And I’m delighted that you thought their interaction properly nuanced. One of my own personal criteria for judging a book is the presence of layered and complex characters, so I struggle to put them on the page in my own work. (Also, sorry for the delay.)

Among the key elements of the first two books is how much the characters change. It covers seven critical years as they turn from boys into young men. Hence the whole “coming-of-age” thing. Ha.

Because they’re teenagers, they’re inclined to drama, especially in the first book where little things can set them off—but it happens early in book II as well. Hephaistion flails and causes a scene just because Alexandros is busy so often and he, Hephaistion, is insecure. His behavior is silly (and Alexandros calls him on it), but the emotions that drive it are very real. That’s always the struggle, when writing teens. They just haven’t lived long enough for much perspective, so everything’s a crisis. Emotions are BIG, driven by wildly pumping hormones and all those extra neurons in the front of the cerebrum. Yet the author must take seriously whatever tempest in a teapot has them riled up, in order to portray it fairly (for them), even while keeping a bit of distance to signal to the reader that yes, it really is overblown.

By the duology’s end, Alexandros has just turned 20 and Hephaistion 22½; they’ve been friends seven years, and lovers for five. By now, they have history. Yet both are emotional people, even if they display it differently. Hephaistion might seem phlegmatic but is far from it. Erigyios is phlegmatic. Hephaistion is a churning volcano under a calm surface. Alexandros, by contrast, wears his heart on his sleeve. So, they’ll continue to kick up dusk occasionally with each other, but increasingly for real reasons, not manufactured ones driven by insecurity.

Take their fracture over the fact Alexandros didn’t tell Hephaistion about Amyntor’s illness. They learn, thereby, that some things can be forgiven only by a choice. Hephaistion’s flouncing over Alexandros “ignoring” him at the beginning of book 2 should be seen in stark contrast to the very real rage he feels when he learns Alexandros concealed his father’s cancer. Yes, Alexandros did so because Amyntor asked, and yes, Alexandros convinced himself it was out of fear for Hephaistion’s safety. But he does finally recognize, and admit to himself, that wasn’t the real reason. He did a truly selfish thing by keeping Hephaistion with him. Hephaistion’s reaction in each instance is meant to bookend the novel. In the first case, he storms back home. In the second, despite his fury, he doesn’t leave Alexandros. And Alexandros accepts Philip’s pardon not just because he knows he’d better, but also because Hephaistion needs to go back. It’s a maturing moment for Alexandros to fully recognize how much he hurt his friend. He can’t fix it. He can only beg for forgiveness. Hephaistion won’t get back those final months with Amyntor. He can only choose to forgive.

So, the sequence is (to my mind) incredibly important to how they’re learning to be Real with each other. And it lays out how they’ll continue to interact going forward.

Alexandros will still screw up sometimes, in part because he’s king and was raised to assume people will subject themselves to him, as well as because his successes convince him the gods are on his side. But it was always Hephaistion’s refusal to kowtow that made him attractive to Alexandros. Ergo, he must make room for that in their relationship. It’s what makes Hephaistion unique.

In book one, after their physical fight over a different dust-up, Alexandros thinks to himself that the fact Hephaistion was willing to hit a prince had earned him the right to hold one. Alexandros must allow for Hephaistion’s autonomy, which means he must apologize (honestly) now and then. It’s what keeps him human, and grounded. And why Hephaistion continues to enjoy such absolute trust. He expects Alexandros to acknowledge when he screws up, and so Alexandros can trust that Hephaistion will always tell him the truth. Because Hephaistion loves him that much.

[sometimesrosy]

Madi's purpose cant just be there so Clarke has a different world view, just like that wasn't what happened with O and Bellamy, they didn't parallel the "girl under the floor" thing for nothing.

Who said that was her only purpose? She’s got her own story. It is causing tension for everyone. And she is not really keen on following Clarke’s instructions because she has her own goals she wants to achieve. And those are actually at cross purposes with Clarke’s. She’s not a lamp sitting around for clarke to hang her feelings on.

…..

Just wondering suddenly, not really about your ask but it made me think about fandom reactions lately. 

Do y’all actually KNOW what a well rounded character IS? Do you know the difference between a cardboard character who is just a prop and a character with their own motivations and agency? Because now that it occurs to me, a lot of the criticism I hear from people about characters they don’t like or characters they DO like doing things they don’t like, is based around “bad characterization,” and I’m sitting here going, what are you talking about? her character is clear. His character is consistent. They are all working on their own motivation with a backstory that (to varying degrees) is separate from the other characters. there’s development there and personality and psychology and motivation and they grow and change and learn things and challenge people and are sorry and want to be better. 

What about that makes for a bad character? 

Do y’all know what a supporting character is and what the purpose of supporting characters in fiction is? Because I’m seeing criticism there too, about supporting characters not being treated like main characters, as if that is some flaw in writing, rather than actually HOW you tell stories. 

A character like Harper or Miller? They are supporting characters. They are tertiary characters. They do not get as much time as Clarke or Bellamy. Who are main characters. Or, for that matter, Monty or Murphy or Raven, who are SECONDARY characters. This is not bad writing. It’s just writing. Characters are tools to tell the story, all of them. Some characters ARE the story. Clarke and Bellamy ARE the story. Our secondary characters get stories of their own, but less screentime and they eventually lead back to the main stories. And there are times when we dont’ see them at all. Tertiary characters are generally there to support the more major characters and give them more development. The storylines they get for themselves are going to be shorter and tied into other plot lines. Thus harper or miller. They were there to challenge monty, bellamy, to further the plot. And this is okay. The more story they have to develop their characters, the more their characters become important. So you can see them getting more importance. Minor characters get even less development and are there just for the story or characters, like, say, Gina, or Titus. They never got storylines of their own. They were there SOLELY for other characters or plotlines.

I don’t know. I hear a lot of complaints about this story not being a good story and these characters not being good characters and i’m telling you, this is not true. So who is coming up with this interpretation and exactly what do they know about what makes a good character? And what makes a bad character? What makes a good story vs a bad story? And how come we only ever hear them talking about how things are BAD and never have them waxing poetic on the GOOD craft.

Oh wait. They actually do. Until Bellamy is in a ship they don’t like. Then he’s all of a sudden being murdered as a character.

oh. dear.

Characters doing something you don’t like is not the same thing as  bad characters, guys. “I don’t like it”=/=bad writing.

[jeannereames]

Good Boys are more interesting than Bad Boys

This intrigues me.

THE LIGHT TRIAD VS. THE DARK TRIAD

The common assumption that "good" characters are boring compared to interesting "bad" characters is a false narrative, built out of simplistic characterizations.

I find "good" characters far more interesting/challenging to write specifically because the "light triad" is so easily made fun of, but essential to humanity's best advances.

What is the "light triad"?

1. Treating people as ends in themselves, not mere means. E.g., you as an individual and your story matter simply because you exist, you don't have to "earn" it. 2. Valuing the worth/dignity of each individual (added: regardless of financial/social worth). 3. Believing in fundamental human goodness...e.g., that people do usually want to do the right thing, not just the expedient thing.

As an author, I tend to favor "good" characters because I like the challenge of people who truly want to be good, but don't always succeed.

This relates back to an old Jewish midrash on the Creation story in Genesis. In that story, the tempter convinced Adam and Eve to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil not because they wanted to rebel and be BAD, but because knowing Good from Evil was for gods. And they wanted to be like (their creator) God.

So according to midrash on Genesis, humanity fell NOT for being bad, but for wanting to be GOOD, like unto gods.

That's a *lot* trickier than simple stories of bad boys redeemed by good girls, or bad girls redeemed by good boys. How about those truly LIGHT characters trying to figure out what it means to be good when there are multiple ideas of what good is, or what’s good for one person/family/group is bad for the other?

Frankly, "bad boys" are boring. "Good boys" are a LOT more complex.

[sometimesrosy]

I'm writing a story with a romantic sideplot of two side characters. They're pretty similar to Bellarke, but the symbolism of their relationship leans more on fire and ice. The problem is it feels like the boy (fire) doesn't deserve the girl because the girl is always cold and distant, pushing people away because of trauma. I don't know what to do to show that the girl loves him back in a way that is in character, and how she gives love to him as she takes his, if that makes sense

Okay. So lean into the metaphors. We think fire is awesome and warm, but it can be too much, it can be overwhelming, it can burn and it can DESTROY. Like really, fire out of control is dangerous.

Now, Ice might be cold, but it’s also calm. It allows for peace and silence. It allows winter to quiet the earth down and recuperate, it’s about death and rebirth, right? Winter always gives way to spring and the ice always melts, and feeds the new growth. 

Fire burns out it’s fuel. Ice contributes to the rebirth of new fuel. Some fruits can’t grow without a freezing period. Ice requires us to draw closer to each other, turn to each other. And ice, in, say summer, also keeps things cool, refreshes, and keeps things from rotting or going bad. Ice is healing and protective in many ways. 

I think your fire and ice metaphor has to go a step deeper. You have to give your FMC more of the positive traits of ice and your MMC more of your negative traits of fire to balance them out. This gives the added benefit of making your characters and story more complex, opening up details and storylines that will make your story be more interesting, unique and involved. 

His fire is dangerous. He could burn himself out. She, as ice, could save him, calm him, cool him down. And ice is actually only one form of water, the others being liquid and gas. She can pull on the nurturing aspects of water.

The way to make them equal is to give value to her Ice qualities, and not just think of her as cold. And think of cold as bad.

[sometimesrosy]

Hey rosy- do you have any advice about how to naturally reveal details about a character throughout a story without like telling the reader explicitly upfront? I've developed a lot in my writing over the years but this is the one thing I've always had trouble with. I just get so excited about my characters and try to create their image with my words without considering a natural progression or effective storytelling.

Okay. This is something I’m dealing with now, as I am working on my revision of my novel. I already did my reveals, and I tried some things and fixed others and worked on doing what you said. I’m not going to give you a prescription for “how to reveal characters” and instead, I’m just going to talk about what I found when I started this revision. Because your question was an issue that I struggle with.

The first thing is that my initial opening chapter was a LOT of backstory and internal monologue. It’s a science fiction novel, so there was a lot of info-dump, just to set up the world.

In fact, there was so much info dump, as the MMC got ready to take off in their space shuttle. Here’s my shuttle, this is what it means, here’s this character this is what she means, here’s some back story for the next character. And yes, I did some action and some dialogue to make it alive, but it still bothered me. 

So you know what I did? I wrote a NEW opening chapter that took place 6 years before this one before he got his spaceship. I went into his backstory and the politics and social issues and characters. Only this time, I didn’t Tell his story as if he was thinking about how hard it was. I SHOWED him with a black eye because he was getting into fights because the people on the station wanted to use him, his sister and his friend as fodder. I laid out the dangers by having another character be an example of what could happen. I introduced space pirates, and made the space pirates a better option than staying where they were. I showed him sending his sister away to keep her safe, and the pain that caused, instead of talking about it as a long time ago pain.

And I also incidentally introduced the set up of humanity without a home, everywhere, living in space ships and colonies and on space station because the earth is poisoned and dead, and a class system based on what organization you’re allied with and what kind of living environment you are in. I showed a video that introduced the FMC as a child, and as someone who was of a class so far above his own that she almost wasn’t real. She’ll show up later, and now we’ve already got a sneak peak into where she came from and who she was, AND how those videos affected the other characters. 

But HOW do all those details get in there? A starting conflict introduces some of them. They don’t like him because he’s not pureblood miner like them, he’s a spacer brat and has no protection. His father is coming for him though. So he has an out, and dreams. Introducing the characters from the different strata, also helped, and I didn’t have to make my FMC actually show up in real life, the video did it. 

Is any of this helping? Introduce characters to show personality differences and conflicts and goals. Have them TALK. You can learn a lot about a character through dialogue. What do they want? How do they try to get it. Reaching goals is important in stories. And also the obstacles to reaching those goals.

Also describe the setting with telling details that show important points. I showed things like worn down technology, or the shady side of the low life space culture on one side, or fancy biofeedback and communications and, well, the shady side of the high class space culture. It’s all shady, and the MMC is just trying to get by. While the FMC is on the top of it all, but about to find out that it’s a lie. How do the characters INTERACT with the details. Add in judicious exposition or internal monologue about their thoughts, but try to keep the thoughts relevant to the movement of the scene.

 Put some action in there. Have them DO something. It doesn’t have to be the fight, it can be putting ice on your black eye after the fight. And use that action to introduce details about the characters. That they team up to fight against the bullies, or that morse code is from when she used to play games with her dad but now is being used as a secret code to tell her to GET OUT!

How do you know when it is the right details and when it’s taking you off the point? Well, check each detail. Is it ADDING to the scene? Does it help you learn something new about them? Is it relevant to the story? Every scene should have a point within the narrative. If it doesn’t move the story forward, whether for action, plot, character development, conflict… then does it belong there at all? Does it get the MC closer to their goal? Or does it represent an obstacle in that goal?  Huh, another thing I noticed. If you can show one detail that gives the reader information of the past, the present and a hint of the future, you have a detail that can help build your world and move the story forward and clarify the character.

The images you are showing of your characters have to do more than paint a picture, they have to tell the story. Find the right images and details and you can make the as pretty as you want, while STILL moving the story forward. Does the color of their eyes matter to the story? Probably not… well, I have one character who has a glint of silver in her eyes because she got a body modification to enhance her sight. But you’re not allowed to ask a private thing like how someone’s been modded, that’s intimate. And that means that Jai no longer has an intimate relationship with his sister who he sent away to live with pirates and only recently got back. See? Past, present and set up for the future. DETAILS THAT ARE CHARACTER AND PLOT AND WORLD RELEVANT. And it’s going to be an important plot point later. 

tbh i think i got a bit carried away here because i really love my story, so I hope you got something out of it and it wasn’t just me gushing about story details. 

[sometimesrosy]

Hey Rosy! Do you have any tips on how to “create” a villain? I have my main character, I want him to have a conflict with life, it’s a futuristic kind of post-apocalyptic but not quite society and he wants a better life for himself, but how can you go up in life when you’re at the bottom, something like that. I don’t even know yet. I just didn’t exactly want society to be the enemy, but ugh society is always at fault (messed his family etc)... any tips? Thank you!

(Sorry but I had to send this one as well) like… I don’t even know what the rest of the plot is?? Like ok he wants a better life and sets off to find one… HOW??? What will he doooo, participate in some kind of program? Infiltrate the high society? Move to another planet?? I have no idea, I just know he’ll want to find a better life and will discover the entire rotten side of society, the corruption, etc. but how does he even come into direct contact with that? Sigh, really need to plot this

Confession: I don’t think writing villains is my strong suit. I always want to write my villains as morally gray and complex, but I end up more exaggerated characters. In one book, he’s a sadistic narcissist– although the real villain that we find out later is really the MCs aunt, who was never given her due, and is using him to gain power. In the sequel to that, the villain is a man who used to be at the mercy of the powerful, and when he gained power, he used it against those who were weaker than him, and if they didn’t do what he wanted, he was cruel. And then I have another villain who is the MC’s ex-husband, who she ran away from, many years ago, and she discovers that he uses his abusive tendencies on the macro, against groups of people, not just on the personal level. He’s, again, kind of cartoony. But it’s my first draft, so I’m going to go with it, and add nuance in the revisions. I have another book where there isn’t really a villain at all. It’s more like man against the elements, although there is a shadowy empire that thinks it has the answer to the element problem and wants to control everyone. 

So those are my most recent villains. I used to want to do that complex villain thing, and then we get to this current political world, and I’ve kind of been like. OH HECK, FORGET THE NUANCE LET ME JUST MAKE THEM CARTOON VILLAINS I SHOULD GIVE THEM A PENCIL MUSTACHE TO TWIRL. Let’s bring in the space nazis. And actually, I took the shadowy, self righteous empire of one book and in a following book, turned it into a dominating, “superior race”  kind of nazi society trying to regain power after they were defeated by my original heroes.

Okay. so I’m not sure I have the answers to “writing great villains,” instead, lets talk about where you are in the writing process and what you need to do to develop your story.

Here’s what I see you have working already. You have the beginnings of your character. You have themes you want to address. And you’re starting to world build. Those are the elements you need to get your story going.

What you don’t have? The conflict. AND, although I’m sure you already have the hero, you haven’t mentioned them here, the PROTAGONIST. The villain is the rock against which the hero breaks themself and comes out stronger. Whatever characteristics the antagonist has (they don’t have to be a villain,) are there to tell the story of the protagonist. 

You are developing your villain by looking at their backstory, where they are from, their family, the obstacles and goals they want to reach. This is good. Great. You are using the needs of the villain’s story to build the world around them. This will also affect the hero. 

I think your plot is going to come out of the conflict between the antagonist and the protagonist. Your antagonist needs to be the kind of character the protagonist needs to face in order to learn their lessons and grow in the direction you want them to. 

So here are the questions, because you didn’t talk about the protagonist. 

What does the protagonist need to learn? How can the antagonist teach this?

Where does the protagonist end up? How does the antagonist help or hinder them?

What are the goals of the protagonist? How does the antagonist get in the way of these goals. Does the antagonist want them for themself or do they not want them to happen at all?

What does the protagonist believe of themself, and how does the antagonist change or reinforce that belief?

Who is the protagonist and how does the antagonist high light or contrast who the protagonist is. 

If you know what role your antagonist plays in your protagonist’s life, then you have a better idea of who they need to be to play it, and where they need to come from, what they want, what they are fighting, what obstacles they’ve had, what kid of pain. 

I think you’ve got a great start, because you’re really delving into the REALITY of the villain, not just using them as a flat character to get what you want in the story. Your villain seems to be getting their OWN backstory, which then creates a more complex world for your hero to move through.

I don’t think you’re having a problem. I think you’re asking the right questions. You may not quite be up to the plotting yet, although you might start coming up with some major plot elements and conflicts that you want to place somewhere in your structure or outline. 

Once you have those, you can start thinking of what you need your characters to DO in order to hit those marks. And once you know what you need your characters to do, then you start getting an idea of who those characters need to be. Once you have an idea of who they need to be, you can figure out what they had to be to go there. 

It doesn’t need to go in that direction, though. If you have an idea of who your character is already, and where they came from, and you know where you want them to end up, then you can find the plot elements they need to go through. There are so many ways to go about this.

One method I’ve tried and had success with (but have never gotten all the way to the end of) is The Snowflake Method of outlining. I find it to be very character driven, which I think might be what you’re doing. I find my outlines now tend to be a lot sketchier and less involved, but thinking about story development in this way has helped me.