How would you define a well-made character, /lit/? It seems very easy to stumble into writing mary sues or other types of common cliches and endlessly redone archetypes, or to accidentally turn the protagonist into a self-insert.
Is a more complex character inherently better than a simple one? Is a realistic character better than one clearly constructed for dramatic purposes? Is an arc and a significant change necessary for a character to be written well? Who are some of the most well done characters in literature?
>>7995731
fundamentally, characters are arcs. at best you can subvert structure by replacing 'one arc over 3 acts' with repeated one-scene arcs or something similarly weird, but if you get any further away, you're writing experimental modernism aka poetry, not narrative fiction.
>>7995747
So if a major character remains static throughout the story, would you consider him to be poorly written? Or are there cases where a character's tendency not to change can be interesting in and of itself, like in the Sound and the Fury when Quentin and Jasonare unable to cope with a changing world? People often claim that this makes them "flat," I guess.
>>7995731
do what bradbury does, draw a scene, let a character wander into it. don't concern yourself wit freud and jung before you know what your story is about
>>7995960
I disapprove of those interpretations of lit anyway. Ruins the whole thing by saying "lol it's all just penises" in my opinion.
What I'm trying to figure out is what makes someone stop and say damn, this was a really well-constructed character.
>>7995772
S/F is an exceptional case because it's modernist. As i said, modernism is poetry not narr' fic't. Point is evocative language, not narrative and story. OP you sound like you're still feeling out your personal aesthetics, if you name your last 3 highly enjoyable reads i can try giving you an interpretation
>>7996049
Ok. I'd say recently I really liked the Sound and the Fury, Under the Volcano, and The Master and Margarita.
A good character is one that exists for a good reason.
>>7996816
A platitude so vague that it has no meaning at all.
>>7995731
a well made character does what it's supposed to do.
a well-made character is fundamentally a hypocrite, flawed, and does stupid shit just because that's what they would do
see: Michael Kohlhaas
>>7995731
Think of your story, Imagine your characters appearance, Imagine how your character interacts with others, Imagine how your character would do things, Make its actions seem natural to it. Your character can be a semblance of parts of your personality, however, I would avoid doing this unless you are honest with yourself and give this character the negatives of your personality as well as the positive things. Use your character to draw out your story and give it flesh. Your characters should also have some weight to them, make them familiar to the reader, give life-like qualities or make him/her do things the reader can relate with. Humanistic qualities go farther with characters than making your characters the ideal ubermensch.
>>7998344
Yes that is the definition of a platitude
Read some Dickens. His characters are usually two-dimensional, but he writes such life into them.
>>7995731
Herman Melville has a couple of good chapters on character in The Confidence Man, 14 and 33. You'd need context for 33, but 14 can be understood independently.
