![]() ![]() Jill gets mad back because that’s a typical reaction we’ve all seen in the real world. Bob is mad because Jill didn’t do what he wanted and he expresses this. The point is that these are “first-order” reactions. You might think you don’t write scenes like this because this shallow reasoning for character actions is often less obvious. To be as cliche and stereotypical as possible, let’s say Bob comes home from work and sees dirty dishes in the sink. Here is the type of situation it can help improve. This technique is best shown with an example. Find something you click with because it will take quite a bit of mining to find those perfect gems to incorporate into your characters. ![]() I’ve become partial to Psychology in Seattle and Popcorn Psychology (no affiliation with either). Others do entire episodes on one topic, sort of like a class you might take at a university. Some take listener questions and provide unofficial diagnoses or advice. Psychology podcasts come in all sorts of forms. I’ve been listening to a lot more podcasts these days, and I discovered a huge genre of podcasting I never knew existed. These main traits conflict with each other and allow the character a lot of room for doing contradictory actions in a believable and consistent manner. This moment led to him ultimately overcoming his shy and fearful nature to use his newfound power to do good in the world. He also had the traumatic moment of seeing his Uncle Ben killed. These are his defining characteristics, and it comes from his backstory of being a nerdy, introvert thrust into the role. Again, this lets the character behave in unique ways that contrast with their main trait but in an understandable and consistent way.įor example, Peter Parker, aka Spider-Man, is unusually intelligent and terrified for a superhero. Sometimes too consistent of a character will make them flat, boring, and unrealistic.Īnother traditional method of characterization is to have one key traumatic moment in their past that leads to a flaw. ![]() Consistency creates the illusion of believability. Humans aren’t consistent in their actions or beliefs in real life, but we often hold fictional characters to a higher standard than ourselves. The other purpose is to have some consistency. This distinguishing feature method is important whenever you have a large, ensemble cast. For example, if the reader sees a character make a crude joke out of a serious situation, they might identify which character it is from that information. ![]() It gives the reader something to latch onto besides a name. They usually tell the writer to come up with a key distinguishing personality trait like bravery, jovial, or neurotic. The traditional methodĪ lot of the classic books on writing and characterization recommend surface-level techniques for traits and actions. The purpose of this article is to give you an underutilized tool for striking this balance: psychology podcasts. They have depth and backstory that informs reactions and decisions. The great characters of literature are consistent, yet unpredictable. If every character acted like a real human, there would be too many contradictory elements to make sense. Others try to develop so much back story and depth that their characters become too unpredictable. These flat characters are boring and predictable. Many err on the side of simplicity, and this turns their characters into mere caricatures. Finding that perfect balance for characterization can be difficult. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |