3 Ways of Making Character

Buffy, the Character Bible

What makes a compelling character?  And how can an author write one?  These questions are on my mind recently, as I find myself slipping in and out of a summer reading slump.  Seriously, I'm finding it hard to connect with books/characters as of late.  Especially after having this whole Martha Grimes hangover from reading the incredibly character purposed Hotel Paradise.  Then again, part of my reading slump comes from marathoning shows (including America’s Next Top Model) on Hulu, and replaying a few video games.  That’s neither here nor there, though.  So nonetheless, why is it that you can read about ten pages before you put a book aside for something else?  And what is it about characters that hook you to a book so that you don’t turn away?  Questions and more questions.   I want to share a few of the things I believe make a character worth diving into without the obstruction of time and outside distractions.

1. Battling Interests

I believe the first element that makes a great and compelling character comes by providing the character battling interests–or values. I love stories where the protagonist steps on stage filled with his or her own values and assurances, only to have those things about him or herself tested by some sort of moral choice. I saw that recently in Ha Jin’s The Crazed where a young Chinese graduate (during the late 1980s) battled with his dreams of becoming a Chinese scholar, but questioned his choice in accordance with the way his country needed activist to bring about democratic change. The tensions in the book lie mainly in his theorizing the consequences of either path.  And his theorizing is further complicated by the pressuring influences outside of himself (such as family and friends).

So, he could easily keep a low profile with a guaranteed (or even passive) existence as a scholar underneath China’s communist control.  Especially considering it has been a governing force all his life. Nevertheless, China’s government snuffs and even imprison those expressionists who push the use of foreign influences.  So what good would it do for him to be a scholar limited to the conceptions of his own country? This is a battle of interests, and in turn, drives the character. A character faced with plenty of opposition, but knows that eventually he or she has to make a choice.

2. Testing Principles

I don't like when authors make a character’s decision come easily to them, and when there is no clear and direct result to their choice. Sort of like that instant-love connection you sometimes get in romance novels, which is probably why I don’t read many of them.  I get annoyed when there is little to know stress or testing used to move a character to his or her choice. Even worse is when there are no real stakes to be had. The thrill is when an author provides a character with high stakes, then doubles the consequence.

If I’m reading a mystery novel, I want to know how far the detective would go to bring about justice. Would ruining his or her reputation be the risk? Or can a case only be concluded with the vengeful murder of its culprit? As for a romance, I would like to know how far the couple would go to stay together. Would they be ostracized from their families? Would they lose the respect of their friends? Or would society have an influence in their resolve to be a couple? Things such as that bring about testing the principles of characters.

3. No Pain, No Gain

The reason I gave up the series :(

Deus ex machina is Latin for “god from the machine." It’s used in the literary sense to describe an author who uses a quick, abrupt means of interference to solve a problem within a novel. Needless to say, it’s frustrating when an author does this. You usually see it when an author builds up some solid tension, then completely loses its release for whatever lazy or uncunning reason. See, it just doesn't pay when something swoops in out of God knows where and saves the day. The result is a cheapened and transparent experience for the reader. And I’m one to distrust the author's direction the minute I spot this kind of authorial ploy.  I’ve even stopped reading some series where books upon books of conflicting back-story is resolved with a single button and a puff of smoke (here‘s looking at you J. D. Robb).  The fact is that a character isn’t convincing without pain. Life isn’t convincing without pain (much to my chagrin).  Nevertheless, like life, character is about how the human spirit is capable of pulling itself off the floor in its final hour. No pain, no gain. So the best characters are always backed far into corners with no foreseeable way out but through their own resourcefulness.

Something that immediately comes to mind in reflection of this topic is actually from Buffy, the Vampire Slayer. Season two, episode 34. Buffy is battling her former lover, Angel (technically Angelus), for the season finale. They clash swords for a minute or two, taunting just a little along the way. He’s evil again, and she’s already made the decision that if she can’t save him, she must kill him. They're close to the wire, and Buffy begins to lose the battle when Angel disarms her.  She appears defenseless. 


When he raises his sword for one finishing sweep, he taunts: “That’s everything. No weapons. No friends. No hope. Take all that away, and what’s left?”

Angel jabs, and Buffy pulls a bare-handed blade block.  Her response to his question: “Me.”

Suddenly, she’s out of her corner and kicking Angel’s ass back before eventually sending him to hell, which subsequently saves the world. A high stake for her indeed, because no one will ever know that she scarified her lover to save the world. Nevertheless, my point is that nothing came to save Buffy in that final moment but herself, her spirit, and her palms.

Needless to say those are only a few things that I believe creates a compelling character–gray areas and such aside. So answer me this: what makes a compelling character to you? Who is a character you can admit that causes you to keep reading a book even if the book isn’t all that great? What do you prefer in a character–or what should come first in a character to you? Should a character be someone you can relate and identify with? Or is it better to have character fresh and new, yet someone you can learn something from in relation to his or her story and the proceeding choices that makes it (sort of like asking are there any villains whom you like)?