/lit/ - Literature

They're interesting
/thread

>>1072545
Define "interesting" in this context. A funny hat? Snark? Debilitating mental problems?

>>1072554
Snark for me. I always like the snarky ones, but only if they have a straight man with them as well.

>>1072559
Would you say it's down to snark? Like, if a character is (effectively) snarky, you'd call them a good one?

>>1072577
They would have to have more than one character trait, or at least be a good parody of one particular character trait.

Really, any lively sort of character is good to me. I don't like the super introverted, meandering characters. But then again, some people like those sorts of characters. I think you're best bet is to have variety.

they need wit

>>1072592
Hmm, two for wit/snark.

Is any depth required?

>>1072601
well, you need at least some depth if you want readers to relate

>>1072613
Unless readers are shallow, I assume.

What would make /lit/ say that a book has bad characters?

>>1072601
You may want to consider having more than one character

>>1072625
Would weak characters become stronger by the company they keep?

>>1072624
>>1072624
I don't think it's a very good idea to assume your readers are shallow, unless you just want to write a twilight esque novel

also, unless you want it to be complete crap, it needs to have an amazingly badass plot to make up for bad characters

>>1072633
> I don't think it's a very good idea to assume your readers are shallow

A joke, a joke.

>>1072627
yes.
or become even weaker, depending on how you write the other characters.

>>1072641
lo
l>>1072648
this

Make it homosex for me. Always been drawn to the homosex ones, but only when accompanied by a straight man.

Things I like about the characters I like:
-easy decipherable motivation, react intelligently and more importantly believably to a given situation, in context.

-Character should have something important that they really care about in every scene they are in, and are reacting to it. If they aren't distressed then the story loses tension, which is fine as long as there was tension there before and this is a lull or filler that is crucial to plot points.

-They don't have something ridiculously amazing about them that defines them completely.

>>1072664
Seems like a lot of people here prefer intelligent characters, which I don't suppose I can blame anyone for since I always enjoy reading a story where characters behave more rationally or conscientiously than a lot of real people.

How about a character who is just a moron, or who is just too incompetent to respond appropriately to the situations they're put in? Would /lit/ reject them on that basis?

The best characters have always been those that grow and change over the course of the story, as real humans change over their lives.

I also like characters that behave with congruence to themselves and their persona. If a character does something wildly out of bounds for them, I instantly lose the ability to really immerse myself in the story. I think to myself that it's not right, that the character I KNOW wouldn't do that.

>>1072672
if the plot is good, and said idiot fits well

>>1072691
You like realism (or maybe that's just consistency).

>>1072697
You mean you would not reject in that case, right?

>>1072672
It can be done well. Sort of. Unless you're going complete, pure omniscient third person (almost nothing is), the protagonist often shades the narration with their voice. That voice can't be "hurrr durrr" and be entertaining for too long without being obnoxious unless you're really skilled.
Consider Gene Wolfe though. Latro from the Soldier series is a brain damaged amnesiac. He's not dumb, but he often lacks the memories and knowledge to piece things together. Able from The WizardKnight similarly lacks the knowledge and understanding to figure out what's going on.
Then again, it usually takes me a few reads and a bunch of reference material to be sure I know what's going on in those goddamned books anyway. ::sigh:: I love em.

>>1072672

No, that would interest me as well. I can stand the character going full retard, just don't belabor his condition. Spread it out, hint at it, disguise him as a rational being, gradually change his environment so his rationality turns into a liability. Smug then panicky then meh then complete acceptance.

>>1072672
The best current example of a moron character done well that I can think of is Jason from True Blood.
He's Forrest Gump, but they kind of did away with the I'm-obviously-a-massive-retard and based him around emotions and skill instead of luck.

Morons don't really mesh well with writing because your character has to be subject to constant exposition. I've never really seen someone pull off the kind of realistic errors that people make everyday well, even those stylized ebonics books still have their own linguistic logic.

I think the central issue in character depth is really "believability" for a given definition of that term. The more a character seems unique and complexly-motivated, and the less he seems conventional and stereotypically-motivated, the more interesting it is to hear about him.

I doubt there's any formula for creating universally interesting characters, because there's a certain degree of interaction between the character and the reader. I often find that I can't enjoy a book that has full-bodied characters that I either can't relate to, or dislike. Similarly, I've guiltily enjoyed books that have very flat characters who are either fascinating or identifiable.

>>1072726
> I doubt there's any formula for creating universally interesting characters

No, we must have a formula!

Thanks for discussing, guys, this is all enlightening.

>>1072717

Me off-screen, I just pulled out

>>1072753
All characters need to be attractive or likable in some way.
That is the very core of any written work. You can detest them as long as its a strong feeling, if a character doesn't make you feel anything then that is most definitely a terrible character.

The characters that I think are best are those that [a] seem human; they are relatable, often have some flaws and make mistakes that normal people make, [b] they have something special about them that makes them better then normal in some way - it doesn't have to be magic, it could be penmanship, but they are good at something - I, personally, have never liked a boring character who fails at everything, [c] they are likable - it can be caustic wit or being moral or whatever, but we should want the character to win - even if he's the villain. It makes them compelling and interesting