How do I design characters for an open-ended series?
There is plenty of information on how to draft characters for a single story, or characters that follow an important arc throughout a (small) number of stories.
Are there any techniques for designing protagonists for an open-ended series, though? Think of TV series like the typical space operas, detectives that solve case after case, etc. They typically start out with a bunch of more or less diverse characters who may, over the course of the (tv or book) series, evolve into initially unforeseen directions. The challenge I'm seeing is that none of the characters can (or even should) be tailored for the initial couple of adventures they face, nor is a pre-defined arc for these characters set in stone that they could be designed for.
What is the approach to take? Is aiming for a certain degree of diversity or conflict potential among the protagonists sufficient, and the actual traits can more or less randomly be distributed as I see fit? Or should I rather try to find a couple of examples for how different combinations of characters would interact, argue, or complement each other to evaluate how interesting or viable different sets of protagonists might turn out over the course of different adventures?
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/38829. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
3 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
Don't write characters, find characters.
I'm a strong believer that open-ended stories should exist in open worlds. Rather than telling a unique and pivotal tale of daring-do they tell the story of a group of people whose deeds may be extremely impactful but are also just the stuff that happens to them. They are actually unremarkable in many ways; such things are also happening elsewhere to other people in that same world all the time. This approach requires that the world of the story be extremely fully realised with many things going on, only some of which effect a group of characters involved in any tale set therein.
Once you have a world like that you can pick out individuals and tell their story for as long or short a period of time as you care to, making sure that the world develops as you go through time in that universe. The best two examples of such extremely well developed worlds I can think of are Bas-Lag and Paolo Bacigalupi's biopunk post-apocalypse world where The Windup Girl and Ship Breaker etc.. are set.
In both cases tales told in that world can only be placed in time when compared to other events mentioned within the texts rather than being interdependent on each other. Any and all the narratives not starring the same characters could in fact be happening simultaneously. The worlds are complex enough to allow parallel groups to have all their very own adventures without them necessarily overlapping in any way.
Once you have a world complex enough that events can and do unfold without POV characters you can pick up the people involved in a given string of events and tell their particular tale. This is what I mean by "finding characters"; you aren't writing a group of characters that need to do particular things but rather telling the story of a group of events that happen to involve the same character(s). This is then a story and character(s) that can go on as long as you can A. maintain a concrete world-line and B. keep the characters alive and interesting in that world.
Hopefully that makes sense and helps with your problem, obviously hit me up in the comments for extra details on anything that needs clarification.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/38844. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
There are two cardinally different ways you can treat your characters in a series.
In some series, the characters remain the same, facing the "challenge of the week". They do not undergo any significant change themselves. A famous example of such structure is Star Trek, the Original Series. Kirk, Spock and McCoy do not undergo any character development in the three years of the series' run. In fact they remain fixtures to such an extent that each got their TV Trope: The Kirk, The Spock, The McCoy. In each episode the setting is different, but the audience can expect the same interactions from the characters. A significant part of the series' attraction lies in those interactions.
For a series to pull this off, the characters must from the start have the traits that would enable interesting interactions. They need to be on opposing ends of some spectrum, so that in each other's company they shine the brighter. And at the same time, each needs to be engaging, have enough depth that the interactions don't get repetitive.
A literary example of the same style of storytelling is Sherlock Holmes: from story to story, Holmes doesn't change. Neither does Watson. Each time, we are curious to see how Holmes will solve the mystery. The innovation of the mystery, combined with the familiar character of Holmes, can carry the series indefinitely.
In other series, significantly more focus is given to character development. Personalities evolve. The character at the end of a season isn't the same as they were at the start of the season - they learn, they change, they are affected by the story. A greater part of the screen-time is given to character development, as opposed to "the challenge of the week", episodes have an effect on the characters, including repercussions. Dollhouse comes to mind as an example. Or Buffy.
For such a premise, you need to give your characters, at least the main ones, room to change and evolve. They need to be sufficiently complex to support an internal conflict, preferably something that can be explored again and again - there needs to be some sort of tension inside them. For example, Buffy has the ongoing issue of being the Slayer vs. wanting to have a normal life. Various aspects of this are explored. (There are also other issues, for the same character, and for others - one character cannot carry a series on their shoulders.) So when you plan the character, you define an inner tension for them right from the start. Maybe, as the story progresses, you will find that this isn't enough, so you resolve it, and add another issue instead - like Willow's nerdy identity got "outgrown", and she got the magic issues instead. But you start with something. You don't start with characters who are already pretty much where they want to be.
In either case, you also need to consider how the characters would interact with each other. If you're planning a team, you need complementary traits. Look here for more information. If you want conflicts and opposing factions, consider what conflicts can be had, and plan for them, put in place characters who would have reason not to like each other. Put in the tension, then you can play with it however best suits your stories.
0 comment threads
The first thing to note, if you want these characters to be capable of being protagonists, is the potential for an arc. This means that the character must want to be somewhere, be it physically, emotionally, or in status, away from where they are now.
This makes them start the journey. It doesn't even have to be the thing that they end up getting to by the end of the story (that could change as their character develops), it just has to be something that initially makes them take action.
For example, in a romance, a man may be dissatisfied with his career, so he ends up quitting his job, getting a new one away from his country, and then, in finding a woman who is willing to help him with culture shock and stick with him through the motions, he falls in love. After that, he wishes to find a way to make her understand that the love he feels for her is more than platonic/convince her that he's worthy/any other romance arc. The initial motivation got the ball rolling, put him in a situation where a plot can sprout from it, but after that, the conflict could be anything related to this new situation.
If the protagonist doesn't want something at the beginning, instead, make them satisfied in their situation, then introduce something to disrupt their satisfaction. The same thing applies to before; there needs to be a way to get the ball rolling, but ultimately the end goal doesn't necessarily have to be 'become satisfied like I was in the beginning'; in fact, ideally it shouldn't be, they should have learned there's more to life than their idle satisfaction.
Anyway, that's my take on writing protagonists rather than just any old character.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/38830. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads