Forum

I've seen it too many times. Some of the shows I've felt had the most interesting, realistic, complex, and distinct characters have been widely criticized and/or ridiculed for not having "well-written" characters. I'm not going to list examples of specific anime or characters (yet) because I don't want to the conversation to be focused from the opening post, though. Rather, I'll explain:

For me, a "well-written" character is a character whose motives drive their actions realistically enough that I can empathize with them, or at least care about their story (or sometimes even despise them, if they're made to make me feel so, though the best antagonistic characters are the ones I can't seem to like, yet I still empathize with them). I'm also very interested in the personalities of the characters and why they might be the way they are. It doesn't matter how they act or what they do, as long as there's a logical, emotional reasoning behind it and I'm made to understand it.

But I've noticed a lot of people who don't tend to connect "motives" and "actions" to whether or not a character is "well-written"... or, rather, they separate them from their concept of what a "well-written" character is. They praise characters who grow and learn and change for the better (even though not all stories intend for their characters to "grow"), or characters who are strictly unique or don't fit specific stereotypes (even if those stereotypes are confirmed to have a reasoning behind them, adding depth to an otherwise bland personality quirk). I hear things like, "They have to have strong points, but they have to have fundamental flaws, too" or "They can't fit the role of something that has been overdone elsewhere, such as the angsty teenager or the damsel in distress or the unflinching hero of justice." And to me, those things are so basic and provide me no insight into the actual "character" as I see them. I can really like a "damsel in distress" character if she fights her own internal battle and I get to see who she is as a person and how she changes based on what happens to her and her psyche. I don't mind angsty teenagers if they end up having a reason to be angsty and their psyche involving that is explored with realistic depth. I feel truly connected to "heros of justice" if they've got a hard motive and a powerful story to tell as they fight for those they love.

Note that I'm not trying to classify people as agreeing with me or agreeing with the other side I just described. Nor am I trying to say this is actually how it is. But this is what I've experienced while talking to a LOT of people with some really interesting thoughts, so I've wanted to bring it up for a long time.

So what I want to know is... regarding everything I've said, how much of each side do YOU agree with? What else might you add to what makes a "well-written" character? What particular characters do you see fit your ideal of a very "well-written" character and why? What particular characters do you think are some of the worst-written or uninteresting characters in (recent or old?) anime history and why? Do you have any exceptions to your own rules, and if so, what/who is the exception and why might that be?

Really, I just want to start a discussion on it, so I can once again try to find a general majority conclusion about what kinds of stuff I might want to use to classify a "well-written" character when watching an anime and what I might want to think about when critically analyzing them. I don't believe in there being a "right" answer, but opening up my mind on the topic might help me understand how to better talk with others about it, so I don't just sound like I'm disregarding their values and maybe I can open them up to how I think.

Just remove the "in anime" part and you have the dilemma of almost any given media that establishes its character(s) in some meaningful fashion.

Arguably, what you wishing to discuss is for too broad in scope and should be cut down in some manner.

I'll give you a highly shortened answer; to me a well-written character is one who comes across as being a person rather than a mere collection of archetypes and tropes.

I want to give out a shout-out to Hiroko from Hataraki Man; she's one of the best-written women I've seen in anime. Heck, she's just one of the best-written characters full stop.

For me a well-written character is just someone has been given a personality (how complex it must be depends a lot on context) and any actions this character does can be explained by that personality (or simple common sense). When an action is explained after the fact, it shouldn't feel like the author is just trying to write himself out of the corner. If it feels that way, I won' t consider a character well-written. I think a well written character is a bit different from a "realistic" character. We often seek to find in fiction things we can't find in reality so very colorful and weird personalities can also be "well-written" as long as that colorfullness and weirdness is explained.

I don't think a character being interesting is part of being well written. The latter can and does influence the former a lot, but just as there are uninteresting people in reality (this is a completely subjective judgement by anyone of course) there are uninteresting people in fiction. There can also be other problems. A well-written character may not stick together with the theme of the show or is just badly utilized - I think sometimes people confuse such cases with bad character-writing.

Here's an interesting question. To me, a well-written character in ANY medium is a character who feels human. That is, I should be able to have a nice conversation with them for an hour, then walk away satisfied. They don't need to be all flaws, but they shouldn't be perfect little Mary Sues either. Even the most god-awful story can be saved if the cast is likable and interesting.

Now, character development is a nice bonus. A well-written character doesn't always need to change during the events of the story. In certain genres, character development isn't even that necessary. Take something like Azumanga Daioh as an example. Given that the very nature of the show is about the episodic lives of a ten-year-old girl and her high-school friends, I don't expect much from the cast as long as they are relatable. I adore Sakaki, Osaka, Yukari, Chiyo-chan, pretty much everyone in the cast. To me, they are well-written because they feel like people I'd see in my neighborhood and look forward to seeing.

Sometimes, the problem with a character is not how they are written, but how they are presented. Yuno Gasai from Future Diary is my primary example. She has all the potential to be a perfectly written tragic villain. Her motivation is to protect Yukiteru (who I will not rant about this time, but all I will say is that he is a horribly inactive and unlikable jerk), even if it means committing murder. Due to really awful circumstances, Yuno uses him as an emotional crutch to cope with the pain. Basically, her love for Yuki isn't so much about him being him so much as it was him being there at the right time. If it had been anyone else, Yuno would have clung to them just as much as she does to Yuki.

That is much more interesting than what we actually got. And do you want to know why that is?

Because Yuno is portrayed not as a tragic villain, but as a cute victim and a waifu. That is my problem with Yuno Gasai in a nutshell. I don't think her character was so much horribly-written so much as it was horribly-executed. A whole lot of her villainous acts are downplayed in many episodes in favor of presenting her as the perfect girlfriend. This is especially true for Episodes Three, Six, and Ten, wherein Yuki and Yuno go on a date, meet his mom, and throw a mock wedding, respectively. I am not f**king kidding. To me, Yuno Gasai will always be a waste of a good character.

Of course, for every waste, there is a really awesome character just waiting around the corner. Whereas Yuno was a badly-written tragic villain, Homura Akemi from Puella Magi Madoka Magica was a well-written tragic hero. Her motivation is to try and save Madoka Kaname from her fate by spoiler[going back in time in an effort to prevent her from making a contract with Kyubey.] Unlike Yuno, Homura's love for Madoka is genuine and sincere. Unfortunately, it also proves to be her one damning flaw. In a magical series played straight, Homura's love for Madoka would conquer all evil, and they'd live happily ever after. In Madoka Magica, love proves to be Homura's downfall, as it ends up making Madoka's fate- and the world's, to a great extent- worse and worse with every attempt at saving her.

That is what makes Homura Akemi such an interesting character. While she is pretty badass (and who doesn't like a badass?), she's also a flawed, tragic heroine. THAT is why I love Homura to death.

Well, I've written a lot. Is anyone willing to contribute? Wink

By the OP's parameters, I would say that Light Yagami is a well-written character in that his motives definitely drive his actions and the consequences and repecussions of said actions are dealt with at every turn. Perhaps it's not 'realistic' in a sense that what's occurring could actually happen, but you still feel that, if what's occurring could actually happen, what you see is pretty close to reality.

I dunno; it seems to me that Death Note (i.e., Light Yagami) is a morality play -- with Light being the anti-hero, of course! I hold morality plays in very low esteem (hmmm, I think I'm going to have to revisit my rating of that series).

A good characterization is something that makes me know characters as well as it's possible in a given story. Such a well written character may change, but it doesn't mean he/she has to change for the better. Besides, she/he interacts with the world at large in a believable manner.

For the show to attract me I need to care for characters or be interested by them and as a result what is happening (the plot). Characters form Monster and Utena are great examples. Excellently written and interesting, even though they are not necessarily likeable.

As for examples of characters that I deem not well-written or boring. Syaoran and Sakura from Tsubasa Chronicle or characters from Puella Magi Madoka Magica., especially Madoka and Homura.

Syaoran and Sakura were to good and their relationship is as boring as they are. It seemed that Clamp tried so hard to make them likeable that it looks like their are both made of sugar. It's a pity, because their predecessors from CCS are much better and genuinely sympathetic.

Apart from characterization, the relationships are also important to me. Nodame is a great example of well-made romantic story, because both characters are interesting and the same thing can be said about their relationship. On the other hand, Kimi ga Nozomu Eien is a show that is awful as far as relationships are concerned, a forced drama. I had hard time to comprehend what was so great about Takayuki for two girls to sacrifice their friendship for him. Because of that characters lost in my eyes. Their decisions made no sense.

Well written probably falls into multiple categories that might rely on what the series wants to get out of a character.

A character could be well written if they are realistic, that they come across as human with all the positives and negatives. They will react in line with their personality.

A character might be written if there is complexity. There are deep motives and actions that might look shallow at first, but are part of a much larger picture. Character might bounce of each other and situations in interesting ways.

And technically a character might even be well written if they are made in a way that the audience wants. They can be inspirational, awesome, attractive, or hilarious. Although if they are particularly poor in the categories above they will generally be called fanservice in nature, something mindless that might still be written well to get fans despite lack of depth or complexity.

development.

and I'm not necessarily talking about in story development but a writers thorough understanding of their own character before a page of story is written.

I was taught by a semi-successful playwright and screenwriter that the most important thing you can do is to write exhaustively solely about your characters before you write your story. Understand their pasts and how they react to things, completely develop them and they will be natural and basically write themselves because their actions will always be consistent with prior actions and an internal logic.

I don't even think being "realistic" is even as important as being consistent. They can even be relatively simple and still be good characters. I'd say Hayate, The Combat Butler would be a good example of this. It is not always a good series, and the characters often define the tropes they represent, but they are consistently good characters. The main cast at least all seem to be driven in their own specific fashions, their pasts are well defined, and their actions are consistent with the pasts they have lived.

Dorothy Wayneright from Big O(season 1). She starts off cold, but during the course of the series, she becomes more emotive and develops a bond for a cat, is more tolerant of Roger and the best thing about this is that Big O is an episodic series and series of these formats usually receive little to no character development. Pokemon for example.

Juno016 wrote:

For me, a "well-written" character is a character whose motives drive their actions realistically enough that I can empathize with them, or at least care about their story (or sometimes even despise them, if they're made to make me feel so, though the best antagonistic characters are the ones I can't seem to like, yet I still empathize with them). I'm also very interested in the personalities of the characters and why they might be the way they are. It doesn't matter how they act or what they do, as long as there's a logical, emotional reasoning behind it and I'm made to understand it.

But I've noticed a lot of people who don't tend to connect "motives" and "actions" to whether or not a character is "well-written"... or, rather, they separate them from their concept of what a "well-written" character is. They praise characters who grow and learn and change for the better (even though not all stories intend for their characters to "grow"), or characters who are strictly unique or don't fit specific stereotypes (even if those stereotypes are confirmed to have a reasoning behind them, adding depth to an otherwise bland personality quirk). I hear things like, "They have to have strong points, but they have to have fundamental flaws, too" or "They can't fit the role of something that has been overdone elsewhere, such as the angsty teenager or the damsel in distress or the unflinching hero of justice." And to me, those things are so basic and provide me no insight into the actual "character" as I see them. I can really like a "damsel in distress" character if she fights her own internal battle and I get to see who she is as a person and how she changes based on what happens to her and her psyche. I don't mind angsty teenagers if they end up having a reason to be angsty and their psyche involving that is explored with realistic depth. I feel truly connected to "heros of justice" if they've got a hard motive and a powerful story to tell as they fight for those they love.

Two sides to same coin. When you flip the coin you can win whether you chose tails or heads.

In short, both imply to me that more than enough work was put into the character's creation, thus it qualifies as being "well written". Naturally, you make a truly great character by having both the "drive" and the "someplace to go", or both sides of the coin to continue the metaphor.

@FenixFiesta: I WANT it to be broad because I want a broad set of views. I'm looking for a discussion to help me expand my own horizons. So far, all of the replies are pretty satisfying.

@dtm42: Indeed. I've always felt like people were not as simple as we like to make them out to be, and no character can ever encompass the kind of depth we can find in a single human being, but the ones who really show that depth beyond the surface are truly the ones I love to see the most out of.

@jl07045: Exactly. Though I think people underestimate authors of these things. It's very, very rare that an author doesn't have an idea of what they're doing with their characters and can't truly create consistency, so I find it rare that any author ends up trying to "write him/herself out of the corner." If it seems that way, there's still enough consistency that you can look deeper and see the underlying plausible connection that the author intended. Though, I have to say that some of the biggest flops in this field have been solely due to multiple writers getting a hold of one character. Or directors taking the adaptions of a story or manuscript into their own interpretations.

@Akane the Catgirl: The thing is, I rarely find characters outside of kiddie shows to be true-to-the-bone Mary Sues. Not that I haven't seen a few, but I've seen so many accusations of Mary-Sue-ness on characters who I can name a bajillion flaws for. Flaws that do affect them as characters and/or accentuate the message or conflict in the story. And a lot of the time, I truly connect to those specific characters myself.
And yes, context is huge. Though I think this is why a lot of people don't take slice-of-life series as seriously, since they're probably looking for something more than what is given and the fanservice (whatever kind of fanservice the show provides) is usually more obvious.
And lol I was trying to avoid bringing up Madoka, since I always over-discuss the characters and story in that (because it's my favorite series and I've ripped it apart ), but I guess it can't be helped. Interesting how you mention Madoka here and then Aylinn criticizes it later. It's one of the conflicts I come across a lot when discussing the characters of the show. Anime hyper

@Shoma_Curse: Well, the realism of the story is technically irrelevant to the realism of the characters. Meaning, things that characters say and do should have reasoning, whether or not the choices are pleasing to the audience.

@nbahn: Why do you hold those kinds of stories in low esteem?

@Aylinn: I absolutely LOVE Syaoran and Sakura from Tsubasa. I find their anime equivalents to be somewhat weak, but their manga personalities were one of the first times I felt like I could truly relate to characters and their feelings. It's still my most treasured manga series. I never felt the characters were "too good." They're certainly good role-models for protagonists and they make the right decisions for the sake of making right decisions, but that's part of what made them so interesting to me. Their internal conflicts couldn't have been more subtly powerful to me.
And then Madoka is currently my favorite anime series and one of the things I consider to have one of the most ideal executions of storytelling in all the anime I've seen in my life. Nothing felt wasted, everything was significant and carried the purpose of the story. And the characters were no exception. The characters certainly didn't carry the story on their backs, but putting them in the place they were put in for the reasons they were really helped drive home who they were as characters to me.
Meanwhile, I found Nodame not as interesting in general, but Kimi ga Nozomu Eien was nice. I can get the idea that it could be considered "forced drama," and I definitely think the authors manipulated the story, but the characters themselves quite impacted me back when I read it (I've never seen more than the prologue of the anime adaption, though).
Thanks for the input! I'm really curious about your views, considering we seem to disagree about what characters we find the most interesting or not. Though I will admit--I think character-driven stories like Utena and Monster are also amazing and powerful to me, for different reasons Madoka and Tsubasa are.

@DuskyPredator: Yes. I think I also am a bit open-minded in my own views of what a well-written character is because I see these reasonings backing them and can connect them to their respective purpose. Some people might just be more set on what a character should be like, so they either don't know or don't care about the reasoning.

@SpasticMinnow: I think you're talking about Character Development AND Characterization (aka. Character Establishment). Both of which are probably THE two things most relevant to this topic. That is, how a character develops through the span of a story and how a character is established to the audience throughout the story.
Consistency is another thing I personally look for in a character. They must be diverse enough to stick out from the trope, but defined enough that their choices and actions make sense with both the situation and their personality/motive.

Thanks for all the feedback! Keep going, everyone!

--------

To add more to the discussion and possibly pull out some of the other things that concern me about judging a series, here's another big question:

Does sacrificing characterization or character development for the sake of a message or concept in the plot actually make a story inherently "flawed," or does its own fulfilled purpose exempt it from having lack of characterization/character development considered a "flaw"...?
I'm not asking if you'd watch or like such a series, or even if a series is good or bad to you if it does so. I'm just wondering if you think a lack of characterization or character development is an inherent "flaw" if the lack of these things actually explicitly contribute to the show's purpose.

Juno016--
I have yet to come across a morality play that wasn't:

Cliched;
Trite;
Burdened with characters that were at best 2-dimensional, but usually 1-dimensional.

nbahn wrote:

Juno016--
I have yet to come across a morality play that wasn't:

Cliched;
Trite;
Burdened with characters that were at best 2-dimensional, but usually 1-dimensional.

I don't think I get what you're saying. What do you consider "cliched," "trite," or "1/2-dimensional?" And what kinds of "morality play" series have you seen?

Forum - View topic
What is a "well-written" character in anime?

Kinnikuman: Perfect Origin Arc Season 1 Anime Series Review

Your Anime Rankings - Best of Winter 2025, Feb 12-18

BLEACH G.E.M. Series Figurine Giveaway

Sengoku Youko: Thousandfold Chaos Arc Episodes 1-10 Anime Streaming Review

MACROSS -Shooting Insight- Digital Key Giveaway

The Cat and the Dragon Novels/Manga Get TV Anime

This Week in Games - Isekai Gaming

Best New K-Comics to Read: February 2025

Vagabond Definitive Edition Volume 1 Manga Review

This Week in Anime - The Boys in Toyland

The Guy She Was Interested In Wasn't a Guy at All Anime Confirmed

The ANN Aftershow - The Anime Gang's All Here!

Ron Kamonohashi's Forbidden Deductions Season 2 Anime Series Review

The Beginning After The End Web Comic's TurtleMe on His Upcoming Anime Adaptation

	Anime News Network Forum Index -> General -> Anime	All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 1 of 3

Forum - View topicWhat is a "well-written" character in anime?

Forum

Forum - View topic
What is a "well-written" character in anime?