[Chainzen]

Sheesh, it's been a while since I was here. I've been busy upgrading my writing skills, before even attempting a manuscript.

Anyway...to the topic.

I have a specific way of doing things when I write. I imagine a single character in the middle of a blank setting. Think of a white limbo with absolutely nothing compared to boundary. From that character, the world spawns over time, or automatically. Usually that person becomes the main character, while other times is replaced by a better protagonist. It mainly just depends on how I want the mental film to roll.

Whether I create a character with an amazing past, or one with nothing to really speak of really depends on the storyline (in my opinion). Since characters drive the story and make the world an interesting place, I like to go beyond normal people. I've made a point to stop making my main characters gods after all is said and done. I think that topic is ancient, until someone takes it to a new level.

A bio is one thing, but writing truly unlocks a character's potential. Do you guys have any suggestions about what I could do to spice up my heroes and villains?

[CrastersBabies]

Heroes

Flaws.

Flaws you can exploit.

Flaws you can use to torture your character.

You have a guy who's a badass? Give him a sex addiction then put him in a room with the daughter of a warlord who will cut off his manhood and feed it to the goats if he so much as LOOKS at the woman.

Watch the sparks fly. :)

Villains

Do all good villains believe they are villains? Or do they think they're doing the right thing same as everyone else?

I saw a chick on Tyra who went out of her way to ridicule fat people. She kept saying, "I do it to HELP them. If I shame them they will stop eating."

Is she evil? No. But she believes with all her heart that she's helping someone (however disgusting her methods and however ignorant she is).

No GOOD villain sees him/herself as a bad guy/girl. They're just out to do their thing. Give them motives. Give them an achilles heel. Think of Mr. Smith from The Matrix. Dude is convinced he's got it right (I know he's a program, but still).

The only thing worse than an immortal hero is an immortal villain.

Both are boring.

Think of Professor X and Magneto. They can play chess together. That's cool. Not that yours has to, but if they were stuck on a desert island, maybe they would.

For me, my protagonist has something in common with his antagonist. Maybe they were both bullied as kids, but the antagonist went down darker roads to deal with his trauma.

Lots of things to consider!

Good luck!

[Spacejock]

I agree re villians not realising they're the bad guys. I like to write my characters so that I could technically switch the POV around and make the 'villain' the protagonist and the 'hero' the antagonist - and still have the reader rooting for the new antagonist.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Do all good villains believe they are villains? Or do they think they're doing the right thing same as everyone else?

I think real-life villains are often just people who feel entitled. They start out being ruthless on a small scale in order to gain their goals, and the more they get in the way of wealth or power (particularly the latter) the more they think they deserve. They don't really care one way or another about how much suffering they impose on others, as long as they get what they want, and they despise people who are more scrupulous because they are "weak."

Words like good or evil just aren't in their vocabulary.

Of course there are also people who commit monstrous crimes against humanity on a very large scale in the name of a "righteous" cause they genuinely believe in, but these are the ones that call attention to themselves and are therefore remembered. The other kind are more common, but less visible.


The only people who like to think they actively serve the forces of evil are sad little people who feel powerless otherwise.

Heroes

Flaws.

Flaws you can exploit.

Flaws you can use to torture your character.

That works, but conflicting loyalties can work, too. Or when what they are taught to believe and are committed to serve ends up going against their better instincts. Either way, they know that something central to their identity, that goes to the very heart of who they think they are and who they want to be, is going to be compromised, and they have to choose which. Putting your hero into a position where he (or she) has to make an agonizing choice.

.
.
.

[kmtolan]

Here's the deal from my perspective. Sure, it's easy to drum up a character bio that hits all the points. Flawed protagonist. Altruistic antagonist. We all want those "gray" characters that are just as human as everyone else (even if they're not human).

I can tell you from recent experience that it's not the bio, it's the consistent follow-through that's the trick. Getting into your character's mind and seeing them head in that wrong direction. Providing the sound rationale driving them from one mistake into another. Blinding them to the obvious, even when friends and family are in their face trying to turn them around. It's not enough to decide your character's motivations. You have to deliver from start to finish.

Kerry

[Chainzen]

Here's the deal from my perspective. Sure, it's easy to drum up a character bio that hits all the points. Flawed protagonist. Altruistic antagonist. We all want those "gray" characters that are just as human as everyone else (even if they're not human).

I can tell you from recent experience that it's not the bio, it's the consistent follow-through that's the trick. Getting into your character's mind and seeing them head in that wrong direction. Providing the sound rationale driving them from one mistake into another. Blinding them to the obvious, even when friends and family are in their face trying to turn them around. It's not enough to decide your character's motivations. You have to deliver from start to finish.

Kerry

I agree completely. I like evil characters whose methods could be related to dragging an anchor through concrete. Watching them get in deeper and deeper over their head. Sometimes is works out for them, but the heroes usually get the last laugh. Sometimes I like to spend weeks developing a single character; allowing the person evolve into an interesting creature.

I really like all the advice guys. Keep 'em coming!

[Teresa Edgerton]

I never create a character biography. I have an idea of who they are, I place them in a certain set of circumstances (which may include the source of their inner conflicts) and let them tell me who they really are by what they do and how they react.

If I don't know them well enough by the end of the first draft to know instinctively what they would do in any given situation, then I believe that something is wrong. If I couldn't answer, off the top of my head, and based on what I have come to understand about them, what they will do, so that I have to look at a piece of paper describing their background, likes and dislikes, to find out, then I would feel that I had failed.

To me, a character should be more than a list of characteristic. There should be a complexity there that can't be described, it has to be shown by their words and deeds.

However, it is from the situation the circumstances that I put them in at the beginning, along with their needs, goals, fears, and probable sources of inner conflict or divided loyalties, that the story grows and the plot unfolds. It may not go where I expect it to go, but that's all right, because the surprises are often better than I planned, but there has to be a starting point.

This is how it works for me. Others have other approaches that work for them. Although sometimes the result of those different approaches seems mechanical to me, if they are happy, and their readers are happy, then it hardly matters what I think.

[CrastersBabies]

I never create a character biography. I have an idea of who they are, I place them in a certain set of circumstances (which may include the source of their inner conflicts) and let them tell me who they really are by what they do and how they react.

If I don't know them well enough by the end of the first draft to know instinctively what they would do in any given situation, then I believe that something is wrong. If I couldn't answer, off the top of my head, and based on what I have come to understand about them, what they will do, so that I have to look at a piece of paper describing their background, likes and dislikes, to find out, then I would feel that I had failed.

To me, a character should be more than a list of characteristic. There should be a complexity there that can't be described, it has to be shown by their words and deeds.

However, it is from the situation the circumstances that I put them in at the beginning, along with their needs, goals, fears, and probable sources of inner conflict or divided loyalties, that the story grows and the plot unfolds. It may not go where I expect it to go, but that's all right, because the surprises are often better than I planned, but there has to be a starting point.

This is how it works for me. Others have other approaches that work for them. Although sometimes the result of those different approaches seems mechanical to me, if they are happy, and their readers are happy, then it hardly matters what I think.

I really like the way you put this. I don't do a character bio either. I do drop in snippets from his/her past when it's relevant to the current action/arc. Otherwise, I intuit.

[CrastersBabies]

To the original poster....

I have a friend who is really into biographies for characters. I "interview" his characters sometimes (via IM). I'd definitely offer to do the same for you if you think it might help. :)

It's a fun exercise.