Characterization:<\/strong><\/p>\nPeople read for characters. It’s not Arthur Conan Doyle’s mysteries but Sherlock Holmes mysteries.<\/p>\n
Characterization Techniques<\/strong>. Stackpole says, “None of these techniques is ‘The right one.’ It’s usually a mix and match of several.”<\/p>\n\n- Modeling<\/strong>: chose a real person as a model for your character (friends\/family\/famous person). A subcategory is physical modeling<\/strong> – just using a physical description of someone. Problems<\/em>: a) unless you are actually writing “roman a clef” (every character is modeled on a real person but names are changed to avoid lawsuits), you may pick the wrong model for your story; b) you may adhere too rigidly to the model and stunt character’s growth; c )internal consistency suffers because you can’t tell what is in someone’s mind – people lie to themselves; d) you might hit too close to home with friends and family; e) if the model is recognized,the reader will be distracted or thrown out of story – or there might be lawsuits!<\/li>\n
- Archetypes<\/strong>: like a casting role. This is very easy to create interactions (Black Hat vs White Hat) between characters. Problems<\/em>: a) inherently shallow and you have to work very hard to develop characters; b) because archetypes are so familiar, you might not push yourself hard enough to develop the characters as unique individuals; c )if the archetype is recognized, the reader will be distracted or thrown out of the story.<\/li>\n
- Compositing<\/strong>: a little bit of both of the above. Gives more depth to the characters, with strengths and weaknesses; more flexibility than strict modeling. Also good for modernizing historic figures. Problems<\/em>: a it )might just not work (the mix of traits just might not\u00a0logically flow, like Patton, the Drag Queen); b) you might have so much stuff that you put too much onto the page; c) you have the same problems as with modeling<\/li>\n
- Organic Development<\/strong>: character grows as story grows. The character is a good fit for the story and progresses logically. Problems<\/em>: a) inherent development eats up a lot of words – you’re feeling your way through. (You’ll either have to take out all the crap or figure out how to carry it forward); b) characters may go off in different directions than what you imagined; c) sometimes a secondary character hijacks the story -you can I) accept it and write the new story, II) save the character for a different story, III) use that character to knock some edges off the main character; d) a lot of their conflict tends to be internal and you need external trigger or ways to represent conflict (have the characters react and vent).<\/li>\n
- Deliberate Design<\/strong>: these characters fit well into the story and conflicts are a lot sharper; they are highly internally consistent. Problems<\/em>: characters may be too perfect – no room for growth (write the story of how they became<\/em> perfect)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
A Quick Technique: write two statements about the character that run in one direction, then write one statement that runs counter to those. “Blitzkrieg Characterization.” This creates an enigma and sets the hook. (“Bob always had a good word for everyone. He shook everyone’s hand and smiled. But you didn’t want him to take up the church offering.”)<\/p>\n
The less<\/em> the reader knows about the character, the better – they like discovering details. Also, don’t lock yourself in with too much detail.<\/p>\nStackpole also says, “Forget the ‘fatal flaw’ – give your characters challenges instead.”<\/p>\n