2011.12.13 Writing: Fictional Characters

Thank you for joining me today for another post from the past with reflections about writing and my life as a writer.

---

If you’re a writer of fiction, you likely subscribe to the newsstand magazines that publish articles on how to write better fiction.

Lately, I’ve seen articles that claim story characters react more to frustration than any other emotion. Their frustration is a running theme of their story, which is not getting what they want until the story’s wrap-up at the end.

Frustration is the carriage that drives all of us along the road of life. How we handle it determines what kind of person we are. Heroes aren’t heroes if they give up.

I think most of us enjoy reading stories about heroes. And I think most of us enjoy heroes who start out as underdogs. Underdogs are usually average joes with weaknesses they must overcome. This is true for almost all the leading characters I create. Their weaknesses are roadblocks on the way to either victory or defeat. As their frustrations mount, readers sympathize with them and cheer them on to succeed—if the readers like them. That means, the writer must create characters readers can relate to.

That’s why I write about people I know.

I don’t know much about criminals, but I can research criminal life in books and newspaper and magazine articles. Nor do I know much about homosexuality, but it’s on the shelves of my public library if I ever need to have a gay character.

No matter what kind of person I create for a story, they must be human. And we all deal with problems (outer turmoil) and frustration (inner turmoil). That’s the human experience.

---

Another reoccurring article on how to write better fiction states that our leading character must be a changed person by the end of their story.

I’m not sure if I’m sold on that philosophy. Perhaps I don’t understand what a changed person is. If it means my leading character changes from underdog to hero, then yes. But the articles’ authors mention personality changes and call them “character arcs.”

Isn’t a change of anyone’s personality a “transformation,” in which they become a brand-new person?

As an author of characters, I ask: Are drastic changes necessary for a story to be a good one?

Or, to put it differently: Can no change in a lead character’s personality still make a good tale?

My lead characters are often stable people. They have characteristics in themselves to tackle the job at hand to be heroes. They aren’t weaklings, though they do have their doubts that trip them up along the way. Their decisions aren’t always right, and their mistakes can result in both positive and negative results. But they always have the will to win despite being underdogs. They overcome their doubts (inner flaws) but not completely. What works one time may not work the next time. That’s their main challenge if they’re going to be victorious. They must be intelligent people from the beginning, not stupid people becoming smart along the way. That’s too drastic, and not believable.

Naïve appearing Frodo Baggins (The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien) already had the makings of a hero in him before he faced the challenges of carrying the One Ring to Mount Doom. You can’t choose a weakling with no heroic qualities to do a hero’s job and expect your readers to swallow it hook, line, and sinker.

Ebenezer Scrooge (A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens) had to have once been a compassionate and generous person in his life to transition from the miserly and selfish old man he’d become. If he’d been mean and cruel all his life, there would have been no transition without the help of magic. And then it would have been a fairytale.

---

Thanks for joining me today for another look back at a 2011 excerpt from my old blog. Until my next post, peace and love.

Steve, 7/1/2024

---

This post “2011.12.13 Writing: Fictional Characters” copyright © 2011, 2024 Steven Leo Campbell at stevecampbellcreations.com – All rights reserved.

---