making minor characters more real

[mirrorkisses]

I know that you shouldn't make your minor characters more interesting than your main character, but currently I feel like my minor characters are too flat. These are minor characters that, in other words, would be a supporting character in a movie.
One character is the best friend of my mc, the other is her current boyfriend. How can I make these characters interesting without letting them overshadow my mc? I feel like they only float in as needed.

[OverTheHills&FarAway]

To me it's all about identification and sympathy. Readers want to connect with your characters--all the important ones. Sounds like your minor characters are important, just as much as the main character.

Give them traits that people identify with, flaws--that creates sympathy as well. When people can read the character and see a bit of themselves in her, they'll be more willing to continue reading, and care about what happens.

Chances are, since the MC is the focus of the story, they'll care about her the most. But it never hurts to make the minor characters sympathetic. You can do that SO MANY WAYS: giving them likable, admirable traits; giving them understandable flaws (which we all have); putting them into a difficult situation; making them physically attractive or horribly ugly...lots of things. Orson Scott Card talks about them in his book Characters and Viewpoint. Very good book.

[Sassee]

They can still be interesting and only float in when needed. Don't try to tone them down... let them jump off the page. The only time they will overshadow your MC is when you let them have more page time than your MC.

[Azraelsbane]

I often have a hard time differentiating minor chars from MCs. Everyone is there for a reason, and none of the characters should be flat. Then you have to deal with the natural progression of things, during which minor chars sometimes become MCs. It can get pretty crazy. Hell, I have six povs in the first novel of my series, and by the end of four books, I will have used ten. People tend to like the more eccentric side chars the most anyway. I loathed Frodo in LotR. The other chars made it for me.

[Nateskate]

You have to be able to visualize your side characters, which may require using a template. In other words, picture someone who has played that "role" in another book, movie, or someone you've known.

Real people have dimension, quirks. And when you're in a room, you might size them up - doesn't have a life, and tries to live vicariously through others- socially awkward, says the stupidest things at all the wrong times.

So, if you can picture your characters, you might have them say and do something unexpected, or even terribly predictable, if that's who they are.

And so, you are rolling your eyes in grief while writing their lines. And the readers are rolling their eyes, because they "know" them.

[Wraith]

When I write new characters, however minor, I see them from two points of view: what they add to the main story (obvious for minor chars), and what they own story is. Imho any character, to feel real, has to have his own personality and goals. For example, your MC's boyfriend shouldn't be there only as her boyfriend - he surely has his own personality, wants different things, and the way his wants meet those of your MC can create a subplot or interesting conflict or simply make their interaction more real.

I can't quite remember who said that no secondary character thinks of himself as secondary - in his mind he's the MC living his own story. And if you think about it, that works in real life too.

I understand what you're saying about your MC ending up overshadowed - but if she's your POV character that shouldn't be a problem, it's a matter of screentime after all. She could actually be enriched by the other characters' complexity - because everything is related in a story.

Try giving those characters something that isn't entirely in the MC's sphere - either a quest of their own or a personal issue they must overcome, a troubled past, a reason for being there at all. Maybe you already did this, I dunno, but however simple it may sound - making them interesting is just that, making them interesting people beyond their story-fulfilling roles. And I don't mean superficial quirks that only seemingly define them - I mean complex personalities and stories of their own. They shouldn't overshadow the main stuff if you keep it simple (no need to throw in all the backstory you have - simply knowing your characters will subtly change the way you write them).

Sorry if this is useless - just my 2 cents. I love minor characters myself, mine are always weird (even weirder than my MC, who is more 'subtle' - in fact it's the weirdness that makes writing them easier for me). But I never let their story unravel completely from past to future - the emphasis is on how my MC changes them, and viceversa, how he influences (and sometimes brings to a closure) their destiny. And they almost never get their own POV scenes (unless they threaten me with death). Hope that helps a little, and good luck. :)

[ishtar'sgate]

Even minor characters must have dimension. If your main characters are strong the minor characters won't overshadow them. If you think of the people around you, there are people that figure prominently in your life and those who don't. Your immediate family are like fully fleshed out main characters. Maybe some of the people you work with are like minor characters. Like the pain-in-the-butt 'I'm always right so don't argue with me' types, or the bore who has to tell you all about their problems at home or lets their bratty kids run all over the office. They don't figure very much in your life but you can make them come alive when you describe them to your friends.
Linnea

[WittyandorIronic]

People tend to like the more eccentric side chars the most anyway. I loathed Frodo in LotR. The other chars made it for me.

Alright...seriously, it's getting kind of freaky. Are you sure we aren't related?

[Azraelsbane]

Alright...seriously, it's getting kind of freaky. Are you sure we aren't related?

You and Voyager are both scarily similar to me. Maybe the three of us were triplets separated at birth? ;)

[OctoberRain]

My minor characters tend to be more quirky than my MC, because they get limited "screen" time. If they're not there to add humour or fear or something important to the story, then I have no excuse for letting them stay. So they do tend to be somewhat colourful for the pages they make an appearance.

[maestrowork]

All your characters, major or minor, should be real. :)

[qdsb]

Wraith said everything I was going to say.

How much do you know these secondary characters? Even when they just float in, there should be a sense of their personalities with an occasional hint about their desires, interests, habits, quirks, baggage, what-have-you.

And their goals and perceptions certainly can and sometimes do conflict with the MC's. Makes for great conversations. :)

[maestrowork]

How much do you know these secondary characters? Even when they just float in, there should be a sense of their personalities with an occasional hint about their desires, interests, habits, quirks, baggage, what-have-you.

And their goals and perceptions certainly can and sometimes do conflict with the MC's. Makes for great conversations. :)

Rule

#1: Every character in your story thinks he or she is the main character.

#2: They all have a life before the story starts and a life (if they're not dead) after the story ends

[NicoleMD]

Try rewriting a scene or two from your minor character's perspective. You don't have to include it in the final version of your novel, but you'll get a better picture of your character as you continue to write that will translate onto the pages without much effort.

Nicole

[lfraser]

I have a minor character who is so lively he's taken over a chapter, and I'm scrambling to make the MC stand out. For some reason this person started chatting away and wouldn't shut up, whereas my MC is a quiet sort, not given to much talking. I'm not sure what to do about that, as this is the first chapter in the story.

[mscelina]

I had that happen to me. I actually 'fixed' it by having my MC engage in a very smart-alec internal dialogue that ended up revealing more about her than the chatty SC who ended up getting killed two hundred pages later.

It also made for an extremely funny chapter. Don't know if that helps, but there you have it. :)

[J. R. Tomlin]

I think the problem in part is in the term "minor" character. It sounds like you aren't talking about "minor characters". There are main characters, secondary characters and tertiary characters in a novel. Your secondary characters should have a fairly good amount of development because they shouldn't just be there to be "quirky" but should in fact carry a good deal of the plot and make a contribution to the story. If they don't you should get rid of them.

However, if they overshadow your main character, maybe your main character needs work or you should change main characters. :)

[amber_grosjean]

Some of the personalities in your minor characters can actually tell you something about your main character. For instance, the MC's boyfriend. There could be something about him that the MC really likes. What does this "like" say about her? That's something that can be unsaid in the story or just shown through action. What we like about people in the real world says a lot about ourselves so why not in stories. After all, we are trying to make these fictionalized characters seem more like real people in a real world aren't we?

Go with that. Showing more personality, likes and dislikes won't overshadow the MC at all. The MC has the POV spot light so giving the other characters more realism will only help the story seem like it really happened or could happen.

Amber

[lfraser]

I had that happen to me. I actually 'fixed' it by having my MC engage in a very smart-alec internal dialogue that ended up revealing more about her than the chatty SC who ended up getting killed two hundred pages later.

It also made for an extremely funny chapter. Don't know if that helps, but there you have it. :)

Smart-alec won't work for the MC, or for me. I can't write funny without sounding forced. At least I can't when I'm trying to be funny.And I haven't pegged the main characer yet. I know what his main conflict is, and it's enough to drive him through the story, but he just ain't talking to me so far.

The reason the minor character is so talkative is that I need him to lay down a lot of the background, and he does that very well.

[David I]

The only reason I've ever seen secondary characters steal the stage from the MC is becasue the MC is underwritten. Usually this is a problem when writers try to make their MC too likeable rather than riveting.

When I see this sort of problem, the usual diagnosis is that the MC is too flat. A good MC can hold the stage no matter how overinflated everyone else gets.

[allenparker]

Characters are just characters. Each moves in and out of focus before dying. The MC carries the storyline along as she or he collides with other characters who, in this instance, are mc (minor character) but is a MC in their own story. The MC just happens to become a mc in the mc's story where she is the MC. The point of collision of two characters becomes a scene. WHo you follow becomes the MC. The other is relegated to being a mc to you, but is a MC to the authors following him.

The function of being a Main or a minor is a function of focus. Characters are both, depending on the story being told and the focus of the manuscript.

Confusing? Good, my job is done.

[Just Me 2021]

What a fabulous thread! I had just gotten this critique of my minor characters - that they were too flat - and am currently going through my book to liven them up a bit. Thanks, everyone, for the input and suggestions! And kudos for starting this thread, mirrorkisses! Serendipitous timing!

[qdsb]

Rule

#1: Every character in your story thinks he or she is the main character.

#2: They all have a life before the story starts and a life (if they're not dead) after the story ends


Uh, maestro--Forgive my overanalysis...Did you quote me as a correction of what I said or as elaboration? Just wondering...ok, obsessing.

[Will Lavender]

Donald Maass, in Writing the Breakout Novel, has some great advice about minor characters. Some of it has been echoed in this thread, but still -- excellent book. Along with On Writing, it's the best I've read on the craft because Maass gives a lot of great examples to go with his advice.

[Stew21]

I try to give each character something unique to bring to the table, minor or otherwise.
Typically in my stories my readers find a minor character they really love.
In the first novel it was the great aunt of my MC. almost everyone who read it loved her. she was an eccentric old lady with a great back story, quirky habits and something significant to say.
In the second, it's the tag along best friend who is an incredible smart ass, but becomes so much more as the story evolves.
they are flawed and odd, but they are genuine.
If you are wondering how to make them more interesting, you have to give them qualities that characterize what you need them to be for your story.
characterization: one of my minor characters rehearses everything. If she has to confront someone, she rehearses it first. my MC (from his POV) hates this about her.
also from his POV, another minor character, his mother, is a drunk june cleaver. She calls him "dear" (which drives him crazy) all the while she is drunk and depressed and on a wicked downward spiral. Even in desperate times she has an "ideal" she feels she must uphold.
Those things not only bring across what they are in reference to the story, but give insight into their personalities, and move the story forward. they are interesting characters because they contribute to the plot, they have habits and personalities that create or help resolve conflict, and they have traits of people we all know.
How the MC or POV character sees them is really the place your minor characters become real, at least to me.

[job]

In building your secondary characters, a lot depends on how many words you have to work with.


If you're writing 80K words, you're not going to have time to give your secondary characters much attention.
Make sure their role is defined, put 'em in a funny hat so the reader can tell 'em apart, and work on your main plot line.

If you're writing 120K words, you likely need those secondary characters to come up with at least one subplot that is all their own.
This is big character development here, because you have to motivate action. In this case, at least one secondary character must be as deep, complex, fully-realized and alive as your protag.



OK. Let' say you have 'writing room' enough that you need at least one fully-expanded secondary character.
How do you develop these secondaries?

It's not just a matter of choosing random, interesting aspects of these guys and tossing them into the story.
You pick and choose the aspects of the secondary characters as carefully as a bride choosing the flowers her bridesmaids will carry.



Let me be didactic here (... even though it isn't really this simple and other folks mileage will vary ...)

Every secondary character exists in your story to interact with some aspect of your protagonist. So the first step in 'unflattening' the secondaries is to determine why they are in the manuscript.

Cuteness? Wisdom? Damsel-in-distress? Validation for the protags values? Antagonist and counterpoint to his values? Reward? Redeemer or redeemed? Comic relief? Threat? Tempter?

(See how each of these possible 'secondary character' aspects exists in terms of what he is to the protagonist?)

Your secondary character is not just a microphone to hold the other half of a dialog
or a plot device that gets kidnapped so the hero can be heroic.

Your secondary character allows the protag to express some part of the theme of the story.

Remember how Christopher Smart said cats were instruments for children to learn benevolence upon?
Your secondary character is an instrument for the protag to learn something on or do something with or be something to or avoid something about or validate something from --
and that 'something' is one of the themes of the story.

So when you start 'unflattening' your secondary character,
you first decide what he is doing for, with, or to your protag.

Let's say your secondary character is an instrument for the protag to learn benevolence upon.
Secondary Character One is his testy, unpleasant, unpredictable aunt Myrtle, of whom he is very fond.
Those are her traits that relate to him, and we do not care how Myrtle's sister or bridge group see her or that she grew up in Crete or that she swims laps every morning at the 'Y'.

When we are 'building Myrtle, we consider the character traits that make Myrtle testy, unpleasant, unpredictable, and yet worthy of love
because this is how she 'fits with' the protag.
Where do these traits come from? How are they related to one another? How does she express them?

And that is how we unflatten Myrtle.

Adding in memorable idiosyncracies for your secondary is not in any way wrong.
Tell us Myrtle is a gourmet cook if this colorful bit of whimsy comes up.
But we look at the set of Myrtle traits most intimately related to the protagonist's dilemma. This lets us deepen and expand the secondary character in the most useful direction. It provides us with just that list of characteristics most likely to move the action and slide naturally into the ongoing narrative.

Putting this in (mercifully) brief form.

We expand the secondary character by asking ourselves how she affects our protagonist.
We look at what she is that delights, annoys, frustrates, or challenges him.

[J. R. Tomlin]

Although there is some truth in what you are saying, I still can't agree with it. If my secondary characters had that little in them, only something to interact with the main character, they would indeed be flat. I find they need more than that, a reality of their own apart from the main character. While I don't tend to make them as fully drawn, they have a personality and background and not just a convenient interaction and a tic so you can tell them apart.

I honestly don't think that is terrifically good advice, or at any rate, it certainly wouldn't work for me.

As an example, if you make your secondary character who is also a love interest nothing more than a stereotyped "damsel in distress" your book WILL get tossed across the room in disgust. And the equivalent in my writing, I suppose would be a guy in distress (since my MCs are always female) I expect to be pretty fully drawn and interesting in and of their own right, not just conveniences for my female to angst over.

I find extremely shallow secondary characters make for a shallow novel.

Edit: Although I'm wondering if you really take your own advice, Job, and make your secondary characters quite that shallow. :)

[NicoleMD]

Let's say your secondary character is an instrument for the protag to learn benevolence upon.
Secondary Character One is his testy, unpleasant, unpredictable aunt Myrtle, of whom he is very fond.
Those are her traits that relate to him, and we do not care how Myrtle's sister or bridge group see her or that she grew up in Crete or that she swims laps every morning at the 'Y'.

The reader might not need to know this, but certainly the writer should. Characters that only exist in the light of the MC are missing out on life and may come out flat or as a glaring mouthpiece no matter how many traits you give them.

Ask not what your secondary characters can do for you, but what you can do for your secondary characters.

Nicole

[FennelGiraffe]

I think the problem in part is in the term "minor" character. It sounds like you aren't talking about "minor characters". There are main characters, secondary characters and tertiary characters in a novel. Your secondary characters should have a fairly good amount of development because they shouldn't just be there to be "quirky" but should in fact carry a good deal of the plot and make a contribution to the story. If they don't you should get rid of them.

Exactly. Terminology varies. In Characters & Viewpoint, Orson Scott Card calls the levels major, minor, and walk-on. In Dynamic Characters, Nancy Kress calls them main, secondary, and bit-player. And I know I've seen others, but I don't happen to have them at hand. (I think I've seen it broken out into more than three levels, too.) The categories aren't really clear-cut and distinct, though. It's a continuum, with each level shading into the next. Your protagonist is at the very top and should be fully fleshed-out. At the bottom, there are characters who are just part of the setting, no more than walking scenery. In between, there are characters who are only one notch less important than the main chars, and there are characters who are just barely above the bottom.

Then there's the question of what is meant by 'flat'. Some people use that word in a generic sense of boring, uninteresting. But, in characterization, it also has a very specific meaning of one-dimensional, not rounded. In that sense, it isn't necessarily negative. What really matters is getting the right level of roundness vs flatness that is appropriate for the character's level of importance. The lower on the scale of importance a character is, the flatter that character should be. Unimportant characters can be quirky. They can be colorful. They can be non-boring. But the one thing they shouldn't be is well-rounded. Part of the reason is that it takes a lot of words and a lot of scene-time to show a well-rounded character. Giving them that much attention makes them look more important than they are.

A classic example is a taxi driver. If your MC gets in a taxi, there must be a taxi driver. (Duh!) He may even get one or two lines of dialog, but it will be pretty formulaic dialog, like "Where to?". That's the very lowest level of importance. Bit-player, walk-on, spear carrier. I don't care how old the driver is or whether he's married, or how many kids he has or where he was born.

Take it up a notch. The taxi driver has a casual conversation with the MC, and in the process, he mentions something that turns out to be significant. Now, I do want a little description -- age, accent, favorite sports team, something -- but not much more than that. This is still a very minor character.

What if every time the MC gets in a cab, it's the same driver? Now the guy is getting more important. But he's mid-level at best. Still one-dimensional. Tell me a little more about him, but I still don't want to know his backstory or hidden secret.

If the reason the same taxi driver keeps turning up is that he's stalking the MC, he needs fleshing out. Maybe not quite fully rounded, but definitely more than flat. Why is he stalking her? What does he want? What makes him think this is an effective way to get it? Has he ever stalked anyone else? How did that end?

[job]

Although there is some truth in what you are saying, I still can't agree with it. If my secondary characters had that little in them, only something to interact with the main character, they would indeed be flat.


Hmmmm ....

If I have given the impression that one should give only flimsy, facile, unimportant, immediately-accessible, stereotyped traits to the secondary character,
then I have not suceeded in what I wanted to say.


An example of a flimsy, unimportant trait shared by protag and secondary character might be
'Aunt Myrtle likes black dogs'
and
the protag is a dog-lover.

I do not recommend this approach.


OTOH ...
If we say protag-secondary interaction is based on Aunt Myrtle being
'an annoying woman who nonetheless calls forth affection from the protag'
we are not using a trivial relationship
like dog ownership.

We can use this 'an annoying woman who nonetheless calls forth affection' trait to lay the basis for Aunt M's persona.

This 'annoying-but-lovable' dichotomy is a complex constellation of traits and interactions with endless possibilities. There are oceans of deep and Gobi deserts of wide in that bit of characterization. Miss Haversham and Pip. Stoppard's Rosenkrantz and Gildenstern. Abbott and Costello. Hal and Falstaff.

Nor is damsel-in-distress a 'stereotyped' or limited relationship.
(I do not think you intended to imply that d-i-d was a stereotype used only in wallbangers.)
Luke and Leia, Faramir and Eowyn, Oliver and Nancy, are three of ten thousand disparate examples of d-i-d (-- and yes -- two males works fine.)


I understand your concern that following my advce would lead to secondary characters written as dull, pedestrian foils (and isn't that a lovely mixed metaphor?) for the protag.

I can sympathize with a reluctance to create a character who serves the protag's story needs. Seems a cold and mechanical way to go about building a character, doesn't it?

And certainly there is much more to building the secondary character than the protag-secondary relationship.

But I'm responding here to the OP's query about the first steps to take in puffing out a flat minor character.

I believe the first step in defining the minor character is to look at the role the minor character plays in the story.
This is likely to lie in his relationship to the protag.

(There's second and third and fifth and tenth steps. There's other considerations to look at later. How do the characters balance one another? How do all the character traits complement, mirror, or contrast with the MC? How can the inherent interest of a minor character be used to bring glow to a scene where the protag can't shine ... There's lots of stuff.)

But here -- in response to the OP -- is a first step. This is a good solid simple way to start designing minor characters --
use the relationship they have with the protag.



If my list of relationships between protag and secondary --
damsel-in-distress or
wise mentor or
object of unrequited affection
etc. --
seems hopelessly hackneyed to you, I hope you will not condemn my entire thesis on the basis of this passing lack of inventiveness.



I find they need more than that, a reality of their own apart from the main character.


I would advocate characters have a reality of their own. Yes.
But characters are purpose-built by the author to perform specific tasks within the story.

One does not just dump characters at random into any story.
This is why the Princess and the Pea does not have any Viking berserkers in it and Little Red Riding Hood is without Harlots With a Heart of Gold.

The idea of 'real' characters and 'tailored to fulfill story needs' characters are not mutually exclusive.



While I don't tend to make them as fully drawn, they have a personality and background and not just a convenient interaction and a tic so you can tell them apart.

Let me agree with you completely. One should not create characters that are not fully-drawn and alive.

I'm not sure why you think characters based on thematic needs of the story are necessarily poorly drawn ....



As an example, if you make your secondary character who is also a love interest nothing more than a stereotyped "damsel in distress" your book WILL get tossed across the room in disgust.


Certainly if one uses damsel-in-distress as the basis of a character (major or minor) one would try to write it so the character isn't stereotyped. This is very good advice.



I find extremely shallow secondary characters make for a shallow novel.

I think that is very true.

But, you know, when the writer deliberately chooses what personality traits a character will have -- this does not necessarily make the character shallow. It's a very useful trick, in fact, to start with a particular kind of character one wants to put in a story and then build the living persona from that. I do rather try to create characters from scratch that way. I sincerely hope it doesn't make them shallow.

[job]

The reader might not need to know this, but certainly the writer should. Characters that only exist in the light of the MC are missing out on life and may come out flat or as a glaring mouthpiece no matter how many traits you give them.

Ask not what your secondary characters can do for you, but what you can do for your secondary characters.

Nicole


Oh yes indeed.
Characters are worse than icebergs, with the little tippety tip they show in the story and most of it underneath where only the writer sees it.

I had a writing friend who'd just twist and bend his story everywhichway so he could tell the name of every walkon character.

"Give 'em names," I would say to him. "Call the taxi driver Francis X Ramananda Goldstein and the waitress Sunshine Tortilla. But stop putting it in the writing."

[David I]

One danger in all of this is that writers use the word "flat" in two different ways,

It is becoming more common to refer to characters as "flat" if they appear lifeless on the page and do not draw the reader's attention.

But the original use of "flat" was in EM Forster's (Howard's End, Passage to India, etc.)Cambridge lectures, which are collected in his book Aspects of the Novel. Forster called characters "round" if they were complex and had the potential for change, the possibility of a major character arc. He called characters "flat" if they were incapable of evolution, and were defined by a limited number of traits.

Forster noted that "flat" characters were often the ones that popped off the page, and gives the example of many of the characters presented by Dickens. Most TV sitcom characters are "flat" in this sense, but some are memorable.

I bring this up simply because I've heard arguments about flat characters where people were using "flat" in two different senses of the word.

I suspect Forster would have called lifeless characters "boring."

[brokenfingers]

Some thoughts:

Give your secondary characters a specific trait, quirk, characteristic that is easily represented - a phrase they always say, a type of clothing, always complaining about their current boyfriend etc., a facial characteristic, a certain attitude, whatever.

During interactions, t/ry to show them doing something non-MC/non-plot related. As in showing the fact that they have a life of their own. Have them say or do something that is totally related to them alone. Have them reference the new car they're thinking about getting or the car salesman that ripped them off and sold them a lemon or whatever. It's ok if they annoy your MC. It's another chance to give your MC more depth/characterization.

Also maybe give them some negative attributes - but don't make them too unsympathetic or have the reader dislike them too much. Not every friend we have is perfect. And some really get on our nerves - but we love them nonetheless.

Just some suggestions. Good luck.

[lfraser]

[quote=David I;1728107]The only reason I've ever seen secondary characters steal the stage from the MC is becasue the MC is underwritten. Usually this is a problem when writers try to make their MC too likeable rather than riveting.

When I see this sort of problem, the usual diagnosis is that the MC is too flat. A good MC can hold the stage no matter how overinflated everyone else gets.


That's what I figured, too. I'm torn between writing on through the storyline, since this is a first draft, or working on this scene further to get a better feel for the MC. I think I'll go with the latter, since my two other main characters are doing fine.