Forum - View topicWhat makes a character good?
|
Goto page 1, 2 Next |
| Author | Message | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
poilk92
 Posts: 433 Location: Long Beach California |
|
|||
|
I have been seeing alot of debate about whether a specific character is good or not e.g. "Shinji Anyone?". So in that spirit i would like to ask what do you think makes a good character?
Now in my mind there a big difference between just being an entertaining character and being a good one (the great teacher Mr. Onizuka is very entertaining for example but hardly a well developed 3 demensional one). A character can be funny or cool but if there isn't more to it than that I have trouble staying interested and could never consider them good or well designed. For me its all about depth and development. In my opinion no good character can be summed up in one sentence and I think a good example of this is Renton Thurston (eureka seven). He is a character who begins his story as a painfuly two demensional immature character and as he undergoes the classic (or cliche depending on your point of view) heroe's journey, more and more depth is revield in his character and he developes so naturaly that even though by the end of the series he is scarcly recognizable as the annoying kid with a hard on for creepy girls its impossible to pinpoint the moment he changes. Another, very different example is hei (darker than black) who does not change over the course of the series but most definitley developes as a character. Hei is a great character because as you learn more about him your impressions of the kind of person he is are constantly shattered and replaced and you delve deeper and deeper into who he is. spoiler[In my experience watching darker than black my interpritation of Hei was initialy that he was just another brooding emo who is in fact no darker or deeper than your average anime hero. But in the scene where a woman's heart is ripped out in front of him and his expresion changes from genuin concern and worry to a souless stare I realized the writers put much more into this character than what is apparent at face value]. So thats my take, what do you guys think? |
||||
|
||||
Tony K.
 SubscriberModerator  Posts: 11430 Location: Frisco, TX |
|
|||
|
A "good character" will subjugate itself to a lot of varying critiques, but I could take any number of them out of Rurouni Kenshin. If you're talking about some kind of emotional or moral progression, my all-time favorite character is Shinomori Aoshi.
spoiler[ So he starts off as this high-horse boss of a ninja/spy group that's stooped down to the level of serving scum like Takeda Kanryuu for the sole purpose of proving the Oniwabanshuu are "the strongest" from the former generation of war-ridden Bakumatsu. Since they were stuck defending the castle and not out doing any real dirty work like the Shinsengumi or even Hitokiri Battousai, pride got the best of him and he wanted to show his worth.] spoiler[ In fighting Kenshin, or so they thought Battousai, Aoshi lost and was basically put at the whim of a greater opponent. And even in the death of his comrades trying to save him, he still had this crazy idea to prove not just his own worth, but the worth of his men in one day beating said greater opponent and claiming the flower of "strongest" for their graves. Hence, the whole soldier of chaos mentality and Shishio affiliation.] spoiler[ But in letting his sanity go, he really did become lost in all the chaos, and turned into nothing more than a self-hating, bloodthirsty murderer fighting under the guise of trying to prove a point, that really didn't need to be taken to such extremes. As a result, he very well could've beaten Kenshin during the Kyoto arc, but it just wouldn't have meant anything because his psyche had become so messed up in just trying to achieve the level of skill he acquired.] spoiler[ In the end, Kenshin made him see the error in this solider of chaos mentality and brought Aoshi back to his noble senses to make it a fair fight: post-training Kenshin (having realized the power of the will to live) and an awakened Aoshi (having realized there was more to live for than just being the strongest). And in his defeat, Aoshi would go on to become a more balanced person in retrospect.] How's that? |
||||
|
||||
|
poilk92
Posts: 433 Location: Long Beach California |
|
|||
awesome |
||||
|
||||
hipnox
 Posts: 143 |
|
|||
|
i center my analysis mostly on Lead characters. the supporting cast usually is allowed to be more 2 dimensional than the main cast because... they are just supporting cast...
i think a good character is one who has a fair share of both virtues and defects. The balance between the 2 may (or not) change as the character develops. Its usually better when it does an uber powerful, smart, fast , demi-god-ish character can make a cool secondary character, but imo wont make for an interesting lead. he needs conflict. he needs to make tough calls, make mistakes, learn, etc.. A good character is also one that you can understand and has a is well defined personality. he might surprise you from time to time with some strange/far-fetched decision making, but you have to be able to expect certain behavior from him, otherwise it will feel random. |
||||
|
||||
Divineking
 Posts: 1296 |
|
|||
|
My example would be Tsuna from Katekyo Hitman Reborn!
As anyone who's at least read/watched the beginning he starts of as a geniune loser(doesn't even have a default childhood friend to fall back on) but Reborn's apperance has a pretty big effect on him, when Tsuna's forced into the role of a mafia boss. While he still refuses to accept the role(though I imagine he will at some point), he shows several signs of maturity throughout the series. spoiler[ During the Mukuro arc, Tsuna is forced to watch as all of his friends fight to protect him. In the process he does make several attempts to sacrifice himself for their benefit, but still believes he lacks the power to do anything. However when he is backed into a corner and is faced by the criticisms of all his friends, he finally realizes that he can't run away from the situation, and finds the resolve to defeat Mukuro on his own.] spoiler[ During later arcs, Tsuna is confronted with the darker sides of the Mafia, as he witnesses Xanxus turn against his own father, and stares down all of the Vongola family's past sins, including one that drives them into conflict with another family. It is in these instances that while he still doesn't embrace becoming a mafia boss, Tsuna realizes that he cannot leave things the way they are, and that he has recieved a responsibility to change the family. Slowly, he begins to take on this responsibility, and begins to take small steps towards leading the family out of corruption.] Not sure how great an analysis this is, but it's what I came up with. |
||||
|
||||
Spastic Minnow
 Bargain HunterExempt from Grammar Rules  Posts: 4629 Location: Gainesville, FL |
|
|||
|
If you've ever taken a fiction writing class you've probably learned one of the secrets of a good character- the writer has to know each of the main characters' history, there should be a long and involved history that the writer understands for each character even if that history is never revealed in the story.
I was instructed that it's one of the first steps in writing a good story- to write detailed histories and profiles of everyone before writing a page of story, so, by the time you do write the action you know everything about them and will be able to present cohesive characters that shape the story instead of having an inflexible story whose characters have to be changed or be inconsistent to fit into that story. So, a good character has a history that informs a story- whether that history is known or not. A poorly constructed character is one simply made up from a collection of desired traits. The characters in anime that suffer from this the most are villains and harem leads. Anime is full of villains that are sadistic and chaotic evil simply because that's what is required of the story. Harem leads are also very often a collection of desired traits that are shallowly defined, presumably so the viewer can place themselves into that character. |
||||
|
||||
|
poilk92
Posts: 433 Location: Long Beach California |
|
|||
|
@Spastic Minnow
Hit the nail on the head more why don't you? As an engineering major, no I have never taken a writing class. But you basically put my feelings into a more decisive statement. Also I whole heartedly agree that many anime writers forego this little bit of writing wisdom unfortunately. They make characters for the scene they want instead of making a scene based on what the characters would actually do |
||||
|
||||
jaced
 Posts: 18 Location: Doncaster - England |
|
|||
|
Personally I think Its all about the conflicts the character has to undergo. The more dire or dramatic situations allow you to see how the character reacts - If you personally agree with the way it plays out you might just find yourself liking the character for it.
|
||||
|
||||
Mai Yukino
 Posts: 217 |
|
|||
|
As far as my interpretation of characters who are good, for example, I define a female lead character as being kind and caring, strong of heart, understanding, selfless, progresses in a positive direction, and is honest in her feelings. I felt this way towards Momiji Fujimiya of Blue Seed, she had her moments, but she develops into fine example of a good-natured anime heroine.
|
||||
|
||||
|
bravetailor
Posts: 817 |
|
|||
Actually, a lot of anime leads, not just harem leads, are pretty shallow and thin as well. (So are 95% of Hollywood characters BTW, but that's another subject) The fact is, most fans SAY they want substance, but when they do get it, they don't like it. Fandom has taken a turn towards idolizing ideals while preaching the opposite. This is embodied most especially by the tired old adage of "likeable" characters being the desired trait. But usually it is those series that do have characters of substance (i.e. not just "boy/girl next door" types) are the ones that still get talked about 10 years later. |
||||
|
||||
|
Spastic Minnow
Bargain Hunter Exempt from Grammar Rules Posts: 4629 Location: Gainesville, FL |
|
|||
|
Well, don't get substance confused with baggage. I"m not saying you are, bravetailor, but the way I read that it sounds like you're saying only a certain type of character can be good while others can't be..
A "moe girl" can have substance, even if that girl is a very normal and sweet person, as long as that character is consistently rendered in a manner that fits a profile and background that is well defined then it will make a good character. IMO I think the characters in Aria are good characters despite the fact that it is a very light series with no conflict in an idyllic setting. And it will be well-remember for generations. On the other hand giving a character lots of emotional baggage and traumatic history and shoving them into "dramatic" situations does not make them good. An example of this (In my opinion- and I know fans will disagree) is the recently finished series Rainbow. They were caricatures of troubled figures who were put through ordeals and made to fit into the slots designated for their types. And the bad guys- some of the worst examples of shallow sadistic villainy I've seen. ... admittedly I didn't finish the show- I started the episode after the fire arc- with the guys sitting under the tree talking about their dreams- and realized I couldn't stand watching another second |
||||
|
||||
|
bravetailor
Posts: 817 |
|
|||
"Baggage" didn't even enter my mind as I typed it. In fact, I think shoehorning a "tragic and emotional past" into a character is just about the worst cheat going on in anime these days. And you know what? Most often than not, it's to make a character more appealing to an audience. That's a cop-out. How often have we seen a character mope around with intense guilt over something he or she did, when a later flashback shows that he or she wasn't at fault at all, or it was only an "accident". That's apologizing for a character and diminishes his or her substance. We never really do see a character with plausible guilt, just imagined ones. (Although I will say that Casshern in the remake, even though he is generally two dimensional, at least has plausible guilt)
I've stopped using terms like "moe" so I definitely won't argue with that. A girl is a girl and I'll take her as she is on a case by case basis. I'm not saying that a "nice" person can't have substance, I just question the narrow minded desire for fans to always SEE "nice" people. When you have an overwhelming demand for "likeability" then creators are forced to shoehorn every idea they have into that box. I'm not opposed to that box in theory, I just think it shouldn't be the ONLY one. |
||||
|
||||
|
poilk92
Posts: 433 Location: Long Beach California |
|
|||
couldn't disagree more, I do not think I in the minority with my genuine appreciation of substance. Though i cant say the same thing for my disdain for simple characters. Oh and i had another thought on the whole "have a firm back story in mind when writing for a character so they behave in a consistent manner" idea. Maybe thats part of what makes me like Renton so much, he starts out shallow because he had no back story. He has basically done nothing in his life but you see his story unfold and actively change the character in a reasonable way. And everything he is and everything he does is consistent with the motivations in his story |
||||
|
||||
Kruszer
 Posts: 7992 Location: Minnesota, USA |
|
|||
|
I don't think a "good character" is anything all that complex to figure out.
A.)You Like them B.) You hate them If any of these are true than the author has succeeded in creating a character that produces a response from you and creates some type of connection. Thus a good character. A dynamic character, on the other hand, requires certain levels of charisma, confidence, intelligence, attitude, wit, and skill. In short someone who you'd like and respect or admire if they were a real person. It can also be achieved by changing them through character development into better or more interesting people or something different from what they were at the start of the story. IE: vilains turning into better people or good people deciding to become antagonists. Personally my favorite character type is the anti-hero. People who aren't completely black or white morally, but those in the gray area. They're the most interesting because they're the least predictable. Last edited by Kruszer on Wed Oct 20, 2010 12:46 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||
|
||||
|
bravetailor
Posts: 817 |
|
|||
I think distilling it down to "like and hate" is too simple though. Does one need to "like" Michael Corleone from The Godfather to say he is a good character? Having taken some creative writing courses as well, I have to disagree somewhat with Minnow about the idea that making a good character should be just about having a detailed history and profile. That's a resume, not an understanding of behaviour. That's a problem I've always had with writing teachers--they understand prose, they understand STRUCTURE, but aren't the best teachers to understand PEOPLE. I think if you want to write good characters, you should take courses in psychology, and then social studies. Psychology so that you learn how a person behaves individually AND how his history and profile ties into his behaviour. Social studies to learn about behavioural trends relating to how the collective environment affects the individual. You need to ask yourself this: How does your setting inform the character? Is he a functioning member of society? An outsider? A rebel? Is he mistrustful of social trends or does he embrace them? What are his political leanings? Society has an important role to play in shaping your character. Secondly--Why your character behaves the way he or she does. What is the psychology behind what they do? It's one thing to say a character was born in 1967, attended 20 schools between the ages 5-13, and graduated from Yale Uni. But you have to ask yourself how these events informed your character, and/or how the character informed these events. What was he or she thinking when going from school to school at an early age? Does it affect his or her ability to build relationships with people? Etc,. Just having a resume and file card isn't enough. Also, worrying about your character's "likeability" factor shouldn't even figure into the process. You shouldn't be thinking, "Okay, so this guy is angry and snide because he's a very cynical person who internalizes a lot of his frustration with how he's lived his life. Oh wait! Is that likeable enough? I'm worried that people won't LIKE him!" No, just no. 
If you draw up a fascinating, complex character and throw up some obstacles for him or her to overcome, that should be enough. If you worry about making a lead character "likeable" then you are pandering to your audience's ego of needing to "relate" to a person who is obviously likeable and charismatic. I am sure that many writing teachers tell you that you SHOULD do that, but I simply disagree. Your character should simply stand on his or her own without ANY marketing influence, warts and all. That said, if you want to write good MINOR characters, then a simple resume probably suffices. But if you're writing important characters, psychology is more important than resume. Last edited by bravetailor on Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:02 pm; edited 3 times in total |
||||
|
||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group