How do you give your characters personality?

[AG31]

For me, perhaps the most important quality in a book of (non-erotic) fiction is that there are characters I want to spend time with. I don't necessarily have to like them, but I do have to find them interesting. I'm currently reading a book where the characters just barely make the grade. The MC is a generic nice guy, pleasant enough, but I keep getting distracted, analyzing why he's not vivid. The plot is what keeps me from giving up.

How do you give your characters personality?

Do you start out with a fleshed out character, using traits from different people in real life?

Do you start out with a place holder, concentrating on plot, and then layering on idiosyncracies like paint onto a canvass?

Does a character come alive in your mind without any conscious model from real life?

Is the cadence of their speech something you're conscious of? Or does it just evolve naturally?

 

[crookedletter]

Dialogue. And, also, dialogue. That, for me, is both the way to establish personality for the reader and to discover characters' personality for myself. See what they say to each other and how they say it.

It helps me too to edge toward humor, though I'm not going for belly laughs. I think people's personality comes out best in the way they mess with each other, in what they find funny. People who are serious all the time end up coming off as more or less all the same, unless you give them gimmicky traits like a limp or a dialect. Give them jokes -- good or bad, it doesn't really matter.

 

[Rob_Royale]

I think a lot of them are just extensions of myself. They have experiences that I've had, have skills that I do, knowledge etc. This allows me to add detail that feels realistic and creates an immersive story. Their personalities just come out as I write, as I imagine them.

 

[KittyOfSteele]

Nature and nurture.

I begin with nature, which is usually a very barebones archetype; something that is recognizable, but reduced to its very basics. Then I add nurture: I put them in the setting and let them figure things out. The scars that they get through their interaction with the setting is what shape their uniqueness.

 

[onehitwanda]

They tell me who they are.

 

[NaughteeDragon]

I give them a couple of traits that help define them and will bleed into their actions. Then I have them display those traits as actions.

A story I’m writing has 3 main characters. MMC is an engineering student and has a history of anger management issues. He is studious and smart. When he gets triggered (usually by his mother), he lashes out and then has to get control of himself.

FMC1 is blind and wants to be a writer. Her blindness makes her cautious and reserved. Her actions reflect that except around the other 2 MC’s.

FMC2 has attachment trauma and is slightly narcissistic. She is possessive of the other 2 MC’s and most of the story conflict is centered around her trying to implement her view of how the other characters should be relating.

 

[HelenL]

They tell me who they are.

This, although sometimes they tell me more after I've posted the first story. Daft buggers.

 

[yowser]

Unique characters have wrinkles.

 

[Writer61]

Three ways:
1) Infer: character is a management consultant = not an idiot
2) Show: character asks if somebody is OK = has some empathy
3) Tell: character says that he doesn't like smoking = doesn't like smoking

 

[SimonDoom]

You don't have to do too much. This is crucial. You don't have to tell the reader more than what is essential.

The character should have Trait A that relates to whatever dramatic purpose the character serves. Whether it's kindness, or intelligence, bravery, father issues, whatever.

If the character is minor, that may be all that's necessary. If the character is major, give them Trait B, to make them more complex. Think about how Rocky cares for his pet turtles. It humanizes him and makes you like him more. It has nothing to do with his fight with Apollo Creed.

That's another consideration if you want the character to be likable: have them do something that makes them likable early on. It's the "Save the Cat" principle from that book about screenwriting. If your character saves a cat early in the story, people will like the character and that likability will persist, even though the act that establishes likability has little or nothing to do with the central storyline.

Always try to establish character through dialogue with others and through action, rather than mere description, if you can.

Don't do too much. You don't need to.

 

[Statius]

Mine vary. I have 1 character that's based on multiple women and their experiences growing up, slightly skewed to fit my story. Others have some of my traits. A little history for a character goes a long way, and as @crookedletter said, humor. Light banter, dialogue that's playful. Give them interests and hobbies that go beyond the story, without getting side tracked- don't wanna go down a rabbit hole after all. Give them real life lived situations, that sort of thing.

 

[iwatchus]

I don't like the term idiosyncracies. To me, that means quirks and oddities. Sometimes those are great, but I don't think you want to force them on every character.

Every interesting character has to have all the human emotions. What do they want, need, like, fear, hate, etc. Like @SimonDoom said, you do not need to include everyone of these in your story. Only include a mixture that defines the character sufficiently AND drives the story.

If you are writing from inside their head (1P or 3P close from their perspective) you can tell the emotions at times. Other times, you want to show, either through actions or through dialogue. I make too much use of discussions with a close friend.

By far, my best characters were in The Important Days. It was first person, inside the MMC head. He was an 18 year male with all the emotional turmoil that brings. And he discussed freely with his mother (some people thought too freely). A lot of the story was discovery where the motivations were for his love interest, a 22 yr woman showing him the ropes (not literally in this story). She had complicated feelings. It worked really well, I thought. All three characters had well developed and expressed character arcs.

 

[CalBishForNow]

Inadequately. My main characters are Mad Libs grab bag of aspects of myself combined with various kinks. I wouldn't take anything I've written here to a creative writing workshop for more reasons than the sex scenes. I'm okay with that overall. It's not why I'm here.

Self-deprecation aside, I've got some side characters I'm more proud of. They're generally real people I've known or characters from movies, with enough details changed to protect them/me from discovery, and a twist or edge added. At least one character from my first series here comes to mind. From things elsewhere, I've had fun writing a grim-and-gritty private eye based in part on a restaurant owner I used to know, or a vampire with the look of Rory Gilmore and the demeanor of Hans Landa.

 

[StillStunned]

I'm not really sure that I give them much personality. I give them actions that serve the story, and I give them dialogue that brings scenes to life. But I don't really go much further than "a character who wants this and acts in such a way".

 

[SassyKinkyLady]

I’m a professional author. For me, writing first person, I dive deep and explore all of the nuances of the personality. What drives them? What makes them tick? What traumas or experiences have they had? How does it impact the story and what parts are useful for the reader to know? Once I’m in the character’s head it is easy.

 

[Voyeurkenneth]

Have a character convey an interesting observation to illustrate their perspective.

 

[SimonDoom]

I have a recurring belief that it's more helpful to think in the concrete and particular than in the abstract. So, to answer this question, think of several characters that YOU thought were well drawn in movies or stories, and think about what you liked about them, and also think about how much of that character's personality was revealed in the story.

You have to apply different standards for short stories versus movies. So use whatever source comparison makes sense based on your project.

Chances are, when you think about it carefully, you'll realize that you've been told much less about that character than you might have thought. You're only given a few traits, and your imagination fills in the rest. Use your experience as a reader as your guide as a writer.

 

[BobbyBrandt]

Typically, their personality comes through in how they are perceived by other characters. I feel that if other characters see their personality clearly, the readers generally will as well.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

that there are characters I want to spend time with. I don't necessarily have to like them, but I do have to find them interesting.

Screw all that. I wanted to BE a couple of them.

 

[Britva415]

Don't do too much. You don't need to.

This is a case of "not enough," though.

I keep getting distracted, analyzing why he's not vivid.

I do somewhat agree with what @SimonDoom seems to mean. Just trying to "make him vivid" can easily result in overshooting and making him too vivid, as in, too vivid for the story, too vivid for what's needed, too vivid to not be a distraction from both reading and writing what the core of the story is.

So, let's try the "three why's" exercise, in order to get to what might be enough without being too much:

Starting with "Why does this story need this character to be vivid?"—make sure to answer it in a 100% in-universe way. No cheating by appealing to out-of-universe factors like "so the reader is interested" or like "I just don't feel like he's vivid enough."

(It isn't really "cheating," it's more like just unhelpfully spinning your wheels and getting nowhere. But that's why it's a rule of this game, so, yeah, breaking it is cheating! The only one keeping score is you.)

So, in-universe, why does this person need to be more "vivid?" This question could be answered with things like "so that X character's reaction makes sense," or like "because a bland guy could never achieve Y," or even like "he acts out because he isn't comfortable in his own skin" or like "he's supposed to be an extrovert (in-universe) and I haven't succeeded at writing him that way (out-of-universe.)"

The second "why?" should address only the in-universe part. Why is he supposed to be an extrovert?
"Because the MC is competing with other people whose attention Mr. Vividman also has."

Why?
"Because the story is about her finding the motivation to come out of her shell and live, dammit, and this guy's worth it for her to dare!"

This is just a made-up example of how three why's show you more about how the guy needs to be and how your effort to make him that way will serve the story. This can really help with brainstorming "well, what exactly did he do, then, to be that way?" which you can then write into the story and make him be that way.

Characters who are vivid are people who are vivid.

 

[SimonDoom]

If your concern is about making a character "vivid" (which can mean different things based on the story) then have the character do something near the beginning of the story that illustrates a character trait that makes the character interesting.

Example:

The opening credits scene for Guardian of the Galaxy. I thought this was a fun, better-than-I-expected movie, in large part because of the tone it set within the first two minutes.

First, you see Peter Quill, masked in a spooky place on what appears to be an inhospitable planet, apparently on a dangerous mission. So your impression is, this is a brave guy who can face danger.

Next, thing you know, he unmasks himself, and he pulls out a Sony Walkman and plays Redbone while he kicks little lizard creatures. The danger of the mission is offset by the irreverence and humor of his personality, established through a small but very telling action. To me, that scene makes the whole movie. From that point on, your attitude is, I'm going to have fun, and not know what to expect, while I watch this guy on his adventures. He's got some Han Solo in him.

That's all it takes. You learn more about him later, but it takes a while. The key point is that with only a few traits you can make a character interesting. And the best way is through action.

If you're dealing with a short story, something under 10,000 words, you don't have much word space to flesh out characters a great deal. A few traits will do.

 

[KindredFlame]

Screw all that. I wanted to BE a couple of them.

Ok you can be more than one person in a story. Put parts of your personality in one and another part in the other. Or is that me just being Bipolar.

 

[AG31]

So, to answer this question, think of several characters that YOU thought were well drawn in movies or stories, and think about what you liked about them,

Thanks to all, but especially for this suggestion. I can't wait to start to read my next book with a guaranteed vivid personality, and will note how I know this.

One thing I haven't seen addressed yet is the cadence of speech. Does that figure into any of your writing?

 

[KindredFlame]

Thanks to all, but especially for this suggestion. I can't wait to start to read my next book with a guaranteed vivid personality, and will note how I know this.

One thing I haven't seen addressed yet is the cadence of speech. Does that figure into any of your writing?

Are you on about the way they speak in the story, one common and one a toff?

 

[SimonDoom]

Thanks to all, but especially for this suggestion. I can't wait to start to read my next book with a guaranteed vivid personality, and will note how I know this.

One thing I haven't seen addressed yet is the cadence of speech. Does that figure into any of your writing?

No. Unless you are really good at this, I recommend avoiding it. Stick with the rendering of dialogue in fairly standard, ordinary ways. Have them express their peculiarities by WHAT they say, not by the way you render what they say.