Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

How/When to create deliberately boring characters?

+1
−0

Among a million other ambitions under the general heading of "Writing," I have this fantasy where I write a major series, several books long with a giant cast.

But I started thinking. In giant series like the recently famous Song of Ice and Fire, Lord of the Rings, Golden Compass, every other giant series ever, there are more than a hundred characters. Maybe even hundreds, sometimes. And of course every writer wants to make the next Jack Sparrow, Willy Wonka, Dumbledore, Holmes...awesome characters who everyone remembers.

But when you have that many characters, I feel you simply can't make them all interesting. If you did, you'd be emphasizing things that may not matter. The audience always wants to see more of an interesting character, and you'd be bringing something to the foreground that had no place there. Many characters, both minor and occasionally major, have to be more flat and generic. 95% of the elves in LotR barely speak at all.

So I suppose my question comes to something like this--> How would you decide when to give someone personality, and when not to? Has anyone here ever consciously kept a deliberate balance in this category?

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/5457. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

0 comment threads

2 answers

+1
−0

The real question is: boring to the writer, boring to the reader, or boring to the other characters?

If the character bores you as the writer, either change the character or excise him/her. That person has no place in your story. I just had to do this myself two weeks ago, and it made a massive, awesome improvement in the entire book.

If the character is boring to the reader (you're getting notes from your betas reading, "Man, Snodgrass again? This guy is made of cardboard! Why are you giving him so much screen time?" when he's supposed to be a major villain), you have a problem. Even your NPCs and your cameos shouldn't make the reader feel the need to flip to the next page. Not every walk-on needs a full biography, but if your character talks to the same barista every morning, give her a nose-ring with a bell on it or something. Or the main character should notice her green eyes, which make her think of the green scarf her girlfriend gave her ten years ago, and she thinks of the scarf every morning for a split second whenever she sees the kid's green eyes.

If the character is boring to the other characters, that's actually fine. That's drama. Your main character should roll her eyes when Snodgrass trudges into the room. And you don't have to redeem Snodgrass from being boring, either; he can just be the comic relief by being boring. But that makes him interesting in his own way — what boring thing is he going to say next, and can your main character refrain from popping him one in the jaw?

To focus on your question, yes, even the 95% of the elves who don't speak have "personalities," even if they don't get names. They are beautiful, graceful, solemn; trackers, singers, archers; Galadriel's women who weave cloaks, etc. Don't over-focus on the barista with the bell in her nose if she's not the point of the scene, but if there's any interaction beyond "she got coffee on her way to work," then bell the barista.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

0 comment threads

+1
−0

Characters are people, just like you and me. We all have our own little biographies and memories that shape our character, define our personality and predict and explain our behavior. Some of those biographies will inherently be more interesting than others and some will be engaging to only a few and not others.

The bank teller, the guy behind you in line at the supermarket or the young lady standing next to you in the elevator could be made of cardboard, as for as you could ever care, and in a story they could be. But they all have their own secret narrative.

I don't believe that you should set out to intentionally make your characters interesting or memorable. As a writer the vapors of your imagination coalesce into entirely new people that you then place into a situation of your choosing and like the silver spheres of a pinball bonus round they will careen and veer in an unpredictable behavior around the stage you've set for them.

You can add order to the chaos by providing every character of note (let's say all speaking roles) with at very least a mini-biography (main characters should have enough of a backstory to fill an hour on the Biography channel). Providing a back story will give you a way to predict the way someone will behave in a certain situation. Even if (especially, really) the reader will never know the backstory your plot cohesion will benefit immensely from it.

I guarantee that JK Rowling, JRR Tolkien, George RR Martin and anyone else who created an epic fantasy universe has notebooks and index cards full of important information about each and every character they ever created. You'll never see them but as a reader (and a writer) you'll appreciate that they're there. For instance, Dumbledore was gay. Rowling never said this outright in her books and left few hints about this aspect of his personality but I guarantee that somewhere in her house there is a notebook with the words "Dumbledore is gay" scrawled in pencil in the upper corner of the margin.

That being said, not all of your character's backstories will be inherently interesting, just as not everyone you meet has an interesting story. But they will be have one. And a character doesn't have to be lively to be memorable. Think HAL in 2001. That's a character who is completely devoid of personality. Yet he is memorable and interesting. Marvin the paranoid android would be remarkably boring to be around. Yet he is memorable and interesting.

Build your characters to a greater or lesser degree based on the level of interaction your readers and the main characters will have with them. Don't try to make them interesting. Just make them, and let the reader decide if they're interesting.

Update:

Since the question has morphed slightly since I posted my response allow me to provide a post script.

While I stand by the crux of my response (simply create new people and ensure that anyone worth mentioning has depth) there is a caveat or two. Readers will be drawn to some characters and not others, and that's okay. But if a character isn't interesting to you, he won't be interesting to your readers and characters that bore the reader give them an excuse to stop reading. But if there's a character who is intentionally boring then I believe he should be so mind-numbingly boring that he's simply unforgettable.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/5459. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

0 comment threads

Sign up to answer this question »