Characterology 1

Greetings, class! Apologies for the delay between sessions; things have been… off. Anyway, Neophyte, Timmy, hello. Today, we continue our journey up the path of characters, that pivotal cornerstone of fiction writing. Sometimes, the difference between good writing and bad rests on how well you craft your characters.

So, as we dive in, let’s start with what I’ll dub “charactelogy” – a study of the various types of characters out there in the wild. Much like a book on entomology delves into the world of insects… Timmy! Where did you find that book? In the library? But when… let me have a peek… oh, look at the innards of that beetle… let’s agree on something, Timmy: let’s hide the book in this drawer and explore it after class. Neophyte, welcome aboard.

Now, characters. You have the standard Main Character, Antagonist, Secondary Characters, Tertiary Characters, and theoretically speaking, so on. Usually, you can reach up to Tertiary characters before slipping into background characters. Why? Because in order to consider anything more than that, you need time to develop your characters, and you just can’t spare the space or time to do so. Not just because the main characters need proper time to develop, but also because the reader or audience needs something to focus on. Too much, and no matter how skilled you are, the readers will get confused. But Point of View is a topic for another day.

So, in keeping with these basic schemes, let me explain. The Main Character, usually the protagonist, receives the most time in the spotlight, the most development, the most everything. Conversely, the antagonist also gets prime development. It’s a must; entire narratives can hinge on the relationship between these two. If both are uninteresting, then you have a problem, not a terminal one, but a problem nonetheless. A story can still be “good” if one of the two is interesting. As a personal example, “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead”. Yes, yes, I know, Neophyte, this is a fiction writing class, not philosophy or politics. I’m not going there. Where I am going is that in those books, aside from the author’s aim, I found the protagonists, AKA the “good people,” completely uninteresting and entirely unremarkable. But the “villains”? Oh, those I couldn’t get enough of. Why? Because they felt so real, so immediate. They weren’t deep in the sense of having a rich backstory or a relatable tragic event that sent them down a dark path. They were real people that I have dealt with in the past and will deal with in the future. For me, it felt as if I was looking into a morbidly real reality show.

So, Main characters and antagonists, secondary characters, etc. This distinction, though useful, is basic. You have to go deeper to understand your characters in a different way. Let me hit you with some concepts, then I’ll explain… Timmy! Yes, I know there’s an ant colony under the floorboards, but… stop smashing those bugs and come back to your seat, please… thank you.

Now, concepts:

• Round Characters: They have the most development with multiple layers of complexity.
• Flat Characters: Usually, though not always, one-note characters, simple.
• Reactive Characters: Characters that react to what happens.
• Proactive Characters: Characters that take action to change their situations around them.
• Dynamic Characters: Characters that change and grow.
• Static Characters: Characters that do not change.

Now, give Neophyte a minute to finish his note-taking… Allow me to explain. To write something as complex as characters, you need to understand how to develop them. So, the definitions presented above. The simplistic description of “main characters, antagonist, secondary characters, etc.” is just not enough. Why? Because, much like in a company, whatever title you give your characters doesn’t mean that they serve the purpose. Yes a company might be called “Mark ltd.” but the aforementioned mark is nowhere to be seen and the ones doing the heavy lifting is middle management. For example, a protagonist might be the main character, but that individual could be flat, static, reactive, driven by the plot and those around him. Does it mean you have a bad story in your hands? No, not at all. It just means that you have to be conscious of that fact and write the story accordingly.

If you intend to have your protagonist be dynamic, round, and proactive, and then you write the complete opposite, then I’m sorry to inform you, you have failed… Timmy, drop that big sign… when did you have enough time to write it?… you know what, let’s keep it in here somewhere; there may come a time when I need a big sign with red letters saying “you fail.”

Anyway, back to the topic. A secondary character might be secondary, but if the story demands it and the plot needs it, then that character may have a compelling development that can draw in your readers. Ah, yes, astute observation, Neophyte. You ask, “if a secondary character can have that kind of development, then what determines who the characters are?”

The short answer is: what you as the author need for the story you want to write. The long answer is: a combination of what the story needs, what the plot demands, and where your characters are going on their paths. Whenever you write a story, you always catch your characters at a specific moment in their path, a snapshot of a larger process that represents their lives. Who they are, where they are, and how they are at that specific moment when you start your story is but the culmination of everything that has happened before. And our journeys are not all the same; even children born in the same household can end up in very different places. So it is for your characters.

Then you have what the story needs. Perhaps you have a story that needs characters that are brave, action-driven, and decisive, but if you are unaware, then you may end up writing the complete opposite.

Finally, what the plot demands, which is often but not always the outside force that propels the characters into the story.

It’s important to remember that, at the end of the day, you have control of the story. You must be aware, not just know, of what the story needs and what you want to write. Personally speaking, I just hope that we never invent something to let the characters we write come into reality because, oh boy, would they hate us.

In many ways, the makings of your characters are the combination of those three factors. Though this is just the very beginning, there are a lot more factors that come into play, a lot more. Next up, “character arcs”.

So, Timmy, let’s check out the book on bugs you smuggled out of the library. Yes, Neophyte, you are welcome to join us!.