- Joined
- Nov 18, 2008
- Messages
- 446
- Reaction score
- 44
What qualities make a character strong to you?
- Thread starter True
- Start date
- Status
In what sense do you mean being strong or weak?
Are we talking physical weakness in terms of not being very strong, moral weakness in that the character is a thief or a bully or a coward?
You're asking a broad question and unless you give some specifics of what you're looking for it's very difficult to answer.
MM
Are we talking physical weakness in terms of not being very strong, moral weakness in that the character is a thief or a bully or a coward?
You're asking a broad question and unless you give some specifics of what you're looking for it's very difficult to answer.
MM
I realize that you're not talking about a character's physical strength because that would be easy to show within your MS.
In my opinion, a strong character is one that is capable of making decisions and doing what they believe is right for them. That doesn't mean they are without any internal conflict. They might have a tough time figuring out what they should do, given their circumstances, but eventually they react within a story and drive the plot as opposed to letting it drive them.
A weak character, in my mind, doesn't do much of anything. Within a story, they are just there. Perhaps they have some internal conflict, but they're incapable of making decisions and just allow things to happen to them rather than making things happen.
In my opinion, a strong character is one that is capable of making decisions and doing what they believe is right for them. That doesn't mean they are without any internal conflict. They might have a tough time figuring out what they should do, given their circumstances, but eventually they react within a story and drive the plot as opposed to letting it drive them.
A weak character, in my mind, doesn't do much of anything. Within a story, they are just there. Perhaps they have some internal conflict, but they're incapable of making decisions and just allow things to happen to them rather than making things happen.
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2008
- Messages
- 446
- Reaction score
- 44
Oh, sorry. I'm not talking about physically. That'd be too easy, like Piano said. I'm talking more personality wise. Sorry about that.
I like someone who can think for themselves. I like a character who in YA terms- doesn't revolve completely and utterly around a BF or GF to the point that there own personality is subsumed into this other person.
I like someone who can make hard desicions and live with the outcome whether is good or better yet not good.
I think in a lot of ways now-a-days it's easy and lazy for main characters (UF I'm looking at you) to be snarky for snarks sakes- make STUPID decisions and be totally disrespectful to authority for the sake of...I don't even know what in half these books- rebellion? To look cool? And they rebel even when 'authority' is RIGHT. That annoys me a lot. I want a character who can listen to those with more experience and make a reasoned choice, not just lash out with "I don't wanna so there". But that is asking a lot.
I think a character with the courage of their convictions is cool, whether they are right or wrong, they have follow through with or without soul searching.
I like someone who can make hard desicions and live with the outcome whether is good or better yet not good.
I think in a lot of ways now-a-days it's easy and lazy for main characters (UF I'm looking at you) to be snarky for snarks sakes- make STUPID decisions and be totally disrespectful to authority for the sake of...I don't even know what in half these books- rebellion? To look cool? And they rebel even when 'authority' is RIGHT. That annoys me a lot. I want a character who can listen to those with more experience and make a reasoned choice, not just lash out with "I don't wanna so there". But that is asking a lot.
I think a character with the courage of their convictions is cool, whether they are right or wrong, they have follow through with or without soul searching.
To me, a strong character is one who understands *why* he or she is making the choices she's making, good or bad. Or who at least comes to that understanding as the novel progresses. Does that make sense?
I also think a strong character is one who keeps slogging on, even when things couldn't be any worse.
Oh, and I do like characters who start out weak but gain strength as the story progresses. I like a nice character arc. Otherwise, what's the point?
I also think a strong character is one who keeps slogging on, even when things couldn't be any worse.
Oh, and I do like characters who start out weak but gain strength as the story progresses. I like a nice character arc. Otherwise, what's the point?
A strong character is a broad field. And more than that, not all characters NEED TO BE STRONG. Not everyone is a go getter.
Now, usually, go-getters make good main characters. I know that almost every single character I've written as a MC is a go-getter, the only exception being Jimmy from E.L.F who kinda watches as his girlfriend does all the hard work/being badass.
So, what is a go-getter?
They're someone with the strength to act, not just to react. They take life by the horns and make it go the way they want it to go. Or at least, they try.
Now, usually, go-getters make good main characters. I know that almost every single character I've written as a MC is a go-getter, the only exception being Jimmy from E.L.F who kinda watches as his girlfriend does all the hard work/being badass.
So, what is a go-getter?
They're someone with the strength to act, not just to react. They take life by the horns and make it go the way they want it to go. Or at least, they try.
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2008
- Messages
- 446
- Reaction score
- 44
I agree. I don't think every needs to start out strong, but I do think it's important they end strong--unless there's more to the story. I don't think a go-getter is necessarily strong, though, or that the opposite isn't. And yes, 'strong' is a broad field, which is precisely why I asked. I want to know what others' definition of a strong character is, since I--and I'm sure, others--hear so much about it.
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2008
- Messages
- 446
- Reaction score
- 44
Definitely agree with this. I don't like characters who don't bother to listen to authority when they're right just for the sake of not listening to authority. That is an immature twat to me, right there.
Aekap, I also agree about the character who starts out weak and gains strength as the book goes on. It's important to me the character's personality changes since we can change drastically from the littlest things. If there isn't much a difference between the beginning personality and the ending one, then not much actually happened.
Well, I try and write strong leads - usually female - so I guess if I look at my main characters as examples, we can see what I think of as a strong character.
Lets see...
Milo Valentine, a magical hermaphrodite who can shift between genders at will, joins the magical internal regulation service or MIRS to police the magical underground. She/he is sexually proactive - having a casual relationship with two boys and a girl - fiercely loyal to her grouchy partner, Max, and has ready access to really big guns. She/he rarely lets fear get in the way, and keeps pushing on even when all seems lost. Finally, she/he is smart enough to piece together the evil conspiracy and stop the cabal of sorcerers who are stealing people's souls through television sets.
So, to me, strength is...
Intelligence.
Good heartedness and the will to back it up.
Firepower
Sexual assurance and confidence.
Or at least that's one KIND of strength. A different MC of mine, Ashley, has the intelligence down, and she's a good hearted person with a strong will power, but she lacks firepower and sexual assurance and confidence...but she has magical powers and a burning focus to keep her friends alive through thick and thin.
So, we can boil it down to.
Intelligence, Goodness, and the Will to Use it.
Though being sexually confident is a nice change of pace from the trepidations, nervous, and the shamed.
And big guns are sexy.
Lets see...
Milo Valentine, a magical hermaphrodite who can shift between genders at will, joins the magical internal regulation service or MIRS to police the magical underground. She/he is sexually proactive - having a casual relationship with two boys and a girl - fiercely loyal to her grouchy partner, Max, and has ready access to really big guns. She/he rarely lets fear get in the way, and keeps pushing on even when all seems lost. Finally, she/he is smart enough to piece together the evil conspiracy and stop the cabal of sorcerers who are stealing people's souls through television sets.
So, to me, strength is...
Intelligence.
Good heartedness and the will to back it up.
Firepower
Sexual assurance and confidence.
Or at least that's one KIND of strength. A different MC of mine, Ashley, has the intelligence down, and she's a good hearted person with a strong will power, but she lacks firepower and sexual assurance and confidence...but she has magical powers and a burning focus to keep her friends alive through thick and thin.
So, we can boil it down to.
Intelligence, Goodness, and the Will to Use it.
Though being sexually confident is a nice change of pace from the trepidations, nervous, and the shamed.
And big guns are sexy.
This.
There's also the point that there is a difference between being a strong character and being a strongly drawn character (and conversely a weak character and a weakly drawn character).
For me a strong character is someone I can believe in. I don't need them to be particularly smart, or especially brave or loveable or likeable. I need them to be real people with real flaws and real dilemmas.
It's the complicated characters who readers remember and love, not the ones drawn with a broad brush.
MM
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2009
- Messages
- 114
- Reaction score
- 6
- Location
- Down South
- Website
- niaraie.livejournal.com
In my opinion, a strong character is not someone who deals with difficult circumstances because his enablers/supporters have left him no choice. A strong character would, knowing the possible repercussions, choose to go head first into a troubled situation (literally or not) to get the job done.
Lately, I've soon too many protagonists called "Strong". Especially females, because they fight back in fantasy stories after their guardians angels/friends/ family have been killed, kidnapped or what not. When their friends were around, they just kind of hung back, not doing much.
Lately, I've soon too many protagonists called "Strong". Especially females, because they fight back in fantasy stories after their guardians angels/friends/ family have been killed, kidnapped or what not. When their friends were around, they just kind of hung back, not doing much.
Last edited:
Posing a slightly random question, here. Is Hamlet a weak or strong character?
I'm leaning towards "strongly drawn" but weak, since he can't seem to make up his mind about anything.
I'm leaning towards "strongly drawn" but weak, since he can't seem to make up his mind about anything.
Strong, weak, lazy, fat, pessemistic, indecisive, it depends on the book.
However, one thing that absolutely must be a quality in a main character of any book that I pick up is: they have to actually DO something. I can't stand characters who allow things to happen to them without doing a lick to help themselves.
Whether it's right or wrong doesn't matter, so long as the character makes a decision and takes action.
However, one thing that absolutely must be a quality in a main character of any book that I pick up is: they have to actually DO something. I can't stand characters who allow things to happen to them without doing a lick to help themselves.
Whether it's right or wrong doesn't matter, so long as the character makes a decision and takes action.
Would this be strong as in three-dimensional, realistic, and interesting to read about? Or strong as in being "the hero of the story," full of admirable qualities such as bravery, charity, perseverance, etc?
For the former, I think that's quite necessary for all the important characters of the story. For the latter--that's only if that's the sort of character you want to write. Some stories have an anti-hero for a protagonist, for example, and that means the character will have some blatant negative qualities along with the positive ones. (And of course, even if the protagonist is a "hero of the story" type of character, there should still be some weaknesses and shortcomings for the character too.)
It can be a tricky thing sometimes, keeping the main characters likable, especially when we don't want them to be goody two-shoes. ;]
For the former, I think that's quite necessary for all the important characters of the story. For the latter--that's only if that's the sort of character you want to write. Some stories have an anti-hero for a protagonist, for example, and that means the character will have some blatant negative qualities along with the positive ones. (And of course, even if the protagonist is a "hero of the story" type of character, there should still be some weaknesses and shortcomings for the character too.)
It can be a tricky thing sometimes, keeping the main characters likable, especially when we don't want them to be goody two-shoes. ;]
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2009
- Messages
- 1,057
- Reaction score
- 114
It depends on the book. I admire muscles and brawn and the ability to kick serious ass - but what impresses me the most are characters who have strong (usually moral) opinions and are willing to fight for them / make huge sacrifices for them.
Huh, this is an interesting one...
Bringing up Hamlet makes me think that, basically, good characters aren't always all strong or all weak. I really like the idea of Hamlet as strongly drawn but weak.
Like Zoombie said, I think passive characters get far too much hate. I don't care if the character is passive or active, as long as s/he is well written. It seems like we've gone so far against passivity that your character has to be a gritty ass-kicker or s/he is not worth worrying about.
On a much more modern note, consider Regina from SOME GIRLS ARE. She is such a strong and gritty character in the sense that she refuses to just be beaten down by Anna and her evil gang. She stands up for herself and fights back in the most wicked ways. So right now we're all saying, "Yay! Active character! Strong character!" -- but even Regina, Ms. Gritty Ass Kicker herself, couldn't go to the police when Donnie almost raped her. (No spoilers here, this all happens within the first ten pages.) We would think that a strong character would be the kind of girl who would say, "hell no, I'm not putting up with this from you." But she's not. She goes running to Katrina and she has no clue what to do. She even says that she wants to tell Anna, just so Anna can tell her what to do.
See what I mean? Regina might be fierce and feisty and strong, but she's also weak and vulnerable in places. I don't think it's possible to pigeonhole in this active vs. passive, strong vs. weak argument.
I should specify that I still have a royal hate on for passive characters being held up as a role-model.
That makes me want to headbutt books into garbage disposals made of fire and sharks.
That makes me want to headbutt books into garbage disposals made of fire and sharks.
Haha, me too. Buttt I just think that we've all become too "ZOMG ZOMG STRONG CHARACTERS MUST BE ACTIVE ALL THE TIME!" My point was just that I think we've got too caught up in it.
Eh. Passive people tend to be boring. I mean, we all enjoy being lazy from time to time, but I'm betting that everyone here fights nazis every other day, at minimum. Earlier today I drove a car into another car while flying off an airplane that was crashing into a train flying off of a cliff into a volcano, but I still spend a bit of time laying in bed with a good book...
But I'd still want to read about people making their own destiny. Because...well...thats what I like.
Note: What I like.
You might not like it.
But then, I'd have to wonder if you are a commy-mutant traitor...
But I'd still want to read about people making their own destiny. Because...well...thats what I like.
Note: What I like.
You might not like it.
But then, I'd have to wonder if you are a commy-mutant traitor...
Huh, this is an interesting one...
Bringing up Hamlet makes me think that, basically, good characters aren't always all strong or all weak. I really like the idea of Hamlet as strongly drawn but weak.
Like Zoombie said, I think passive characters get far too much hate. I don't care if the character is passive or active, as long as s/he is well written. It seems like we've gone so far against passivity that your character has to be a gritty ass-kicker or s/he is not worth worrying about.
On a much more modern note, consider Regina from SOME GIRLS ARE. She is such a strong and gritty character in the sense that she refuses to just be beaten down by Anna and her evil gang. She stands up for herself and fights back in the most wicked ways. So right now we're all saying, "Yay! Active character! Strong character!" -- but even Regina, Ms. Gritty Ass Kicker herself, couldn't go to the police when Donnie almost raped her. (No spoilers here, this all happens within the first ten pages.) We would think that a strong character would be the kind of girl who would say, "hell no, I'm not putting up with this from you." But she's not. She goes running to Katrina and she has no clue what to do. She even says that she wants to tell Anna, just so Anna can tell her what to do.
See what I mean? Regina might be fierce and feisty and strong, but she's also weak and vulnerable in places. I don't think it's possible to pigeonhole in this active vs. passive, strong vs. weak argument.
Yeah, as usual, I'm in total agreement with you, Beth. I think Regina is a great example. It's disingenuous to put "strong" "weak" etc labels onto characters. I think that's always a subjective judgement call.
To be even more twisty, can a passive character drive plot? I know, I know, we keep saying that active characters drive the plot, active characters make things happen, passive characters let everything happen to them.
But. Again, using my favourite example (not really, I'm not a huge Hamlet fan either MM
) of Hamlet, I would argue that Hamlet's passivity and lack of decision-making ability is what makes the plot happen the way it does -- if he'd been active, I imagine things would have turned out very differently. His personality is still having ramifications on the plot. This is true of a lot of passive characters, imo. Also. Is a character truly weak because they won't always take decisive action? Could that kind of indecision show a mental strength of not following first impulses (again, with Hamlet, it kind of shows that he's not willing to play up to that role of the avenging son set for him. Which would take strength -- taking action in the end is what makes him weak, he gives in to that role).
So perhaps passive does not always mean weak, and active does not always mean strong.
Sorry to just think out loud in this thread! Since I've somewhat confused myself, I hope this post makes sense.
Last edited:
kmsandler
Registered
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
- Messages
- 4
- Reaction score
- 1
- Location
- Northern California
- Website
- www.karensandler.net
I think the character quality that's more important to me than "strong" or "weak" is interesting. Dull characters are the kiss of death. They can be strong as Superman, smart as Einstein, always making the right decision--and boring as hell.
When I first saw your question, I wondered if you mean "strong" as in, a compelling character in terms of storytelling and "weak" as in, lifeless and one-dimensional. If I answer it that way (and I think the other posters have essentially done that), I would say that the character has to be complex. There should be both strengths and weaknesses, but those characteristics should be interesting. Your characters might even resent their strengths (like, say, a track star who wants to quit and join show choir). In the case of my MFC Kayla in TANKBORN, she has extraordinary strength in her upper body, but she hates-hates-hates it and thinks it makes her a freak (even though all her peers are genetically engineered with their own peculiar traits).
When it comes to creating characters, we should never go for the facile. We should always dig deeper. We should layer, layer, layer so that there's always another surprise for the reader to discover.
Okay, off my soapbox now.
Karen Sandler
TANKBORN, Fall 2011 from Tu Books
When I first saw your question, I wondered if you mean "strong" as in, a compelling character in terms of storytelling and "weak" as in, lifeless and one-dimensional. If I answer it that way (and I think the other posters have essentially done that), I would say that the character has to be complex. There should be both strengths and weaknesses, but those characteristics should be interesting. Your characters might even resent their strengths (like, say, a track star who wants to quit and join show choir). In the case of my MFC Kayla in TANKBORN, she has extraordinary strength in her upper body, but she hates-hates-hates it and thinks it makes her a freak (even though all her peers are genetically engineered with their own peculiar traits).
When it comes to creating characters, we should never go for the facile. We should always dig deeper. We should layer, layer, layer so that there's always another surprise for the reader to discover.
Okay, off my soapbox now.
Karen Sandler
TANKBORN, Fall 2011 from Tu Books
- Status