r/CharacterDevelopment • u/Icy-Cloud3789 • 8d ago
Writing: Question What makes a character compelling?
More or less the title. What aspects of characters, specifically villains/antagonists, do people find invigorating enough that they can 'look past' their crimes and lack of morality to make them a favourite?
...And I'm not talking about being good-looking, please; that's hardly an excuse.
Is it personality? Is it reasons/purpose? Backstory? If so, examples of such?
3
u/MoonracerxWarpath 8d ago
For me at least, liking or not liking a character is based on whether or not I can respect them on some level.
1
u/Odd-Contract-7541 4d ago
Right. And if we explore that a little bit and ask ourselves, why would we respect somebody and not respect someone else, it usually comes down to being convinced that their moral convictions are genuine and earnestly held.
1
u/MoonracerxWarpath 4d ago
Maybe. But for me, some of the characters I like, I respect for their intelligence and cunning, or in the case of comic book characters, for the authenticity of their depiction (how true they stay to their original concept).
6
u/Machiavvelli3060 8d ago
A clear, simple motivation.
Lacking edginess.
Something unique about them.
5
u/Pel-Mel 8d ago
That second one a lot of people will find vague, but the defining metaphor for 'bad edgy' characters is a pizza cutter: which is all edge, and no point.
Edginess is fine for still making a character compelling, but it needs to have a point. Authors have to be very careful and intentional with what dark and ultra-moody stuff they want to add.
1
u/KeyRoutine1285 2d ago
Hard disagree on the second point. Well done edginess harbours interest for many readers. We are all edgy to some degree. But I understand you were probably pointing out cheesy edginess. Even then, if the character is a teen or stuck in a teen mental age, it adds a lot of layers to their personality—again, if executed well. (+lots of lampshading from the narrator)
1
2
u/AngiePidgeon 8d ago
I don’t think there is a difference in what makes a villain or a hero compelling. Despite what some may argue most people don’t automatically love morally good characters or automatically hate morally bad characters. Just make the character interesting, because the worst thing you can do is make them boring, the rest is secondary
2
u/Roivas7 8d ago
This is a very complicated question to answer imo, because it's not just one of these things (personality/purpose/whatever) that carries the weight of making the character compelling.
Some of the more compelling characters I've come across feel a lot closer to people in real life. And people themselves are complex human beings. We all have backstories and personalities and feelings and reasons for doing one thing or another, but I think paying attention to how someone's past affects the person they are in the present can really play a huge role in knowing how to write a compelling character.
Sure, having a sob story as a background is one thing, but how do you see it reflected in the things people do or say? If someone's mother died because they didn't have enough money to pay their hospital bill, for example, it could be a reason for them becoming a massive money-grubbing corporate CEO in the future. Some authors would also put in some details about the CEO having PTSD over losing their mom and thus not wanting to part with a sum of money because of those feelings (whether he is conscious about it or not). It adds a layer of complexity to the CEO rather than being "le evil corporate overlord who hates poors and wants all the money in the world".
Of course, this is all one avenue to tackle complexity, another one is "how would they act/react if this particular thing happened to them?" Their motivations need to make sense in the universe they live in, and their actions would need to be in line with their character. Let's say there's this underling who works under the CEO who decides to try and Robin Hood the company's finances to try and support the suffering and destitute. The CEO finds out. What does he do?
If this was a world where law and order was in place and everyone still had their morals, a reasonable action the CEO would take would be to obviously fire him, perhaps even press charges for the whole controversy. But if the answer instead is "shoot him", you're going to need to do a lot of explaining why. Not saying that shooting the underling doesn't work, because there's definitely similar plots where this totally happens.
In fact, yeah, let's go with that. Why would the CEO attempt murder of an underling at the risk of being found out himself and his job and wealth going down the drain as a result? If the CEO answered, "I slipped up and I didn't know what I was thinking", he wouldn't be a very strong (and thus hardly compelling) villain. A true villain would have pulled the trigger without hesitation or restraint--but why? Perhaps as a CEO, he has a lot of money and he uses the power of wealth to his advantage. Perhaps he bribes cops and media to look the other way. Perhaps he hired professionals to cover up the whole scene and make it look like an accident. Or perhaps he hired an assassin to shoot the underling so he wouldn't have to, just to keep his name and face out of the spotlight.
In short, if you want to make a compelling villain/antagonist, you have the option of writing them to be complex characters themselves and making sure everything they do stays true to their character. Also keep in mind the setting you're writing them in, especially during those times when you're finding plot holes in your story where your villains doing something that doesn't make sense.
Oh, and also make them competent. Nobody likes a Level 1 mob.
2
u/xAmberQuasar 7d ago
Wait I’m nosy now 😭 I feel like the villains I end up loving are the ones where I’m like “okay you’re objectively a terrible person BUT… how did we get here??” Give me a messy backstory, questionable motives, and one tiny soft spot they’d rather die than admit they have and suddenly I’m emotionally invested 💀
2
u/Lassroyale 7d ago
Something I said recently about one of my main protagonists, is that he should not be easy to like, while still being easy to love.
It may sound like a contradiction, but it's not. Like comes and goes, sometimes daily, with mood, present circumstances, and whatever else has affected a person that day. Love is stranger than that, because you can actively dislike someone in the moment – whether it's for 10 minutes or over 10 months – and still love them throughout all of it.
Imo, you don't have to make difficult characters secretly nice or internally anguished in order to make them compelling and loveable.
But you do have to make them true to themselves enough for people to see the human at the center of it.
1
2
u/menace_to_society19 5d ago
A villain who genuinely believes they are in the right and can give a thought-out answer to justify their actions. If they can make me pause and question my own morality for just a moment, they've won me over.
1
u/TheRealVarmint 8d ago
One or more traits with which the reader can easily identify.
Blur the line between hero and villain. Especially in contemporary storytelling, there's a little hero inside every villain, and vice versa.
The villain rarely sees themselves as the villain at all. Take Heath Ledger's Joker... A complete sociopath. And yet, his scenes are the ones that get replayed and replayed on YouTube. Why? Because he explains his sociopathy rationally. Plus, whenever he's on screen, we can't take our eyes off him. He has charisma, a sense of humor even. He's INTERESTING.
My story has several villains, and one, though wholly evil, is extremely charismatic. The scenes with his dialogue were great fun to write.
1
u/Phantom000000000 8d ago
If we are talking about antagonist/villain characters; I love the idea of a villain who has standards. Maybe their ultimate goal is to take over the world but I think they are more compelling if there are things they are not prepared to do in pursuit of that goal, lines they will not cross.
It brings up intriguing questions about what they are after and how far will to go to achieve it? Questions a lot of heroic characters also have to deal with.
1
u/Jolly-Rip5973 8d ago
- There needs to be unanswered questions about the character that make you want to keep reading to find out what the answers are.
- There should be unresolved issues so you want to keep reading to find out how the issues are resolved.
- The character should be relatable.
- The character should have laudable (admirable) characters.
- The characters should have laudable virtues. In Greek philosophy and traditional literature being virtuous is actually what defines being a "hero".
- Character should have some relatable weaknesses. Superman needs his kryptonite. If there is not danger or threat to the character, the character is boring.
- Character building would include background stories that explain the characters behavior, maybe even odd behaviors but pieces of the backstory should be revealed slowly over time without giving away the full picture.
- There should good experiences that character has that people can relate to as something they would like and some negative experiences which people can sympathize with.
Personally, I think world building is greater than character design. If the world isn't interesting to learn about, the novel won't keep my interest.
You learn about the world through the eyes of the character and how he interacts with the world.
I realize the trend is to make anti-heros and criminal protagonists but honestly the older patterns used in literate resonate with humans powerfully.
A lot of people have misory in their lives, who the eff wants to read about more misory?
1
u/KeyRoutine1285 2d ago
Wow, “worldbuilding is more important than character” is not something you hear everyday! There truly is an audience for everyone.
You’ve made some nice points. For me, a significant lack of virtues makes for a much more interesting protagonist. Another unpopular opinion.
And to the “a lot of people have misery in their lives, who wants to hear about more?” another wow from me! My entire series is titled after the concept of misery, pain, and suffering. We couldn’t see things more differently on that regard. Respect, though! It fascinates me how different people are.
1
u/Jolly-Rip5973 2d ago edited 2d ago
See....you think about all the things mentioned and I you have Robert Heinlein, JRR Tolkien, Frank Hubert, George R.R. Martin.
Pretty much the patterns that made some of the best selling authors of the last 100 years.
Not many people are going to want read about pain, suffering and misery.
You do you, because you certainly not writing for an audience.
1
u/KeyRoutine1285 2d ago
I think you read my comment in the wrong tone. I was surprised to see how different our perspectives are and how different it is from what I heard. I even said I respect your opinion and tried to word this in a nice way—because I meant it in a nice way.
Many people would like to read about nice things, hopeful things, fantastical things. And many people will want to read about brutish realities, misery and suffering. Because people are different, and have vastly ranging interests. That’s what I said…
I was entirely positive towards you and I’m sorry you misunderstood what I said.
1
u/Jolly-Rip5973 2d ago
Oh, don't take it that way....it's just a comment on how the attitudes of "artist" have change over the last 100 years.
I read some tragedy when I was high school and it actually depressed me.
There are the successful patterns that highly successful storyteller have used for 2000 years though which resulted in very popular and successful book series and I listed those traditional patterns.
Those are the patterns that Tolkien used for example.
1
u/KeyRoutine1285 2d ago
That part I got until you started to sound a bit upset and said that, definitely “not many people want to read about misery”, and that “you do whatever cause you don’t have an audience”. That’s kind of how it sounded. Perhaps you meant that I shouldn’t care about the audience and to do what I want?
The part about not many people liking harsh topics can’t be true, as GRRM himself bases his world around horrid things happening as well. Perhaps we misunderstood eachother.
1
u/Jolly-Rip5973 2d ago
I'm one of the those super analytical aspi type people that fairly devoid of emotion.
Try to strip any perceived emotion out of it and look at it as objective analysis...
Sure, there are some people that revel in reading about misery...but what percent of the population is that?
There is a small subset of the population that is Emo, nihilist or melancholic.
Asking yourself just what audience you are actually trying to write for wouldn't hurt you. All good product design starts with that question.
That's a real questions for all artists;
Are you creating art for yourself and your own personal expression or are you creating art for an intended audience?1
u/KeyRoutine1285 2d ago
I see. I fear your subjectiveness is kind of getting in the way of understanding me.
I’d like to mention some of your points which I personally also believe are not ideal. Most readers want characters and emotions, and are not most interested in just worldbuilding.
As I said, GRRM is a character writer as well as a world-builder. I also am like that. I think we have different beliefs of what is truly popular.
Obviously nobody writes about just pain and suffering. My book has lots of comedy, world-building, politics and stakes. It isn’t a whiny memoir about the human condition. It’s my fault I made it seem that way.
I couldnt agree more on your take about audiences. In fact, I am writing for an audience. Which exists. Seeing we have different tastes, it makes sense you wouldn’t be familiar with my target audience. I am being very empathetic in trying to understand your POV, as I did in my original comment. But due to your personality, which you’ve described as “devoid of emotion”, I see why we also cannot have the same capacity of understanding the variety of people.
1
1
u/chefjamaljonsey 8d ago
“Is it personality? Is it reasons/purpose? Backstory?”
All of these are the same thing you already know the answer it’s just about how you yourself apply that so think about your character to your other characters and what’s makes there personality reason purpose and backstory different
1
1
u/Turbulent-Eye-4737 7d ago
For me, it's if the character is sympathetic enough which may or may not be the case. I tend to have a thing for antiheroes with emotional vulnerability. But for someone like a villain, I could like them if they're charming or cool enough.
1
u/Cyranthis 7d ago
As long as they aren't idiots I guess that's a start.
Ever watch a horror movie and they walk into a room that's CLEARLY a bad place to be. But they don't turn around and leave immediately. Dumb characters are not compelling and the audience hopes they die, or start cheering for your villain instead, you messed up.
Unless the aim was to prop up the villain, then carry on lol.
Intelligence is compelling to me. Brave enough to move forward, smart enough to get the hell out.
Also, adaptability is a good one. Let's say someone who's terrified of bugs is forced to fight a hive of giant bugs. You get to watch them go from one kind of character into another. If the pacing makes sense and feels right.
Compelling characters are tough to nail down, but I think if you like them as your writing, that's a good sign you're on the right track.
1
u/bertraja 7d ago
For me it's when/if they think and act like a normal human being (even if they're not), so i can follow their train of thought and maybe see their point; up to a point.
What i really dislike is when villains get an elaborate but ultimately contrived backstory just so they can arrive at the point in the story when they can serve as the antagonist. I find that too boring to care.
It's a clichè, but a good villain is a hero in their own story, and if said story has a similar beginning, middle and end for me to follow, i can grok the bad guy/gal in their entirety.
1
u/BrokenNotDeburred 7d ago
Usually, readers are hooked by the end of the first page. That's not enough time to "look past their crimes" or "lack of morality", much less an entire back story.
It is enough time to make a character interesting. Competent, maybe, but not infallible. Maybe grounded in the genre, but not a perfect archetype. You can suggest that there are non-obvious questions about who the lead is and how did we all get here, in this place, at this time.
Here's the first paragraph introducing one of my best-received characters:
British Airways didn't have deputized air marshals on their flights. But, Benjamin Keeling had no doubt that the humorless young man with too-short hair, a desert tan, and a Remembrance Day poppy in his lapel sitting between him and everyone else on the aircraft could be just as lethal, if need be. The soldier's assignment couldn't have been made more apparent than when he followed Keeling to the head and back.
No c.v. or rap sheet, and no physical description. However, is our Benjamin the hero, the villain, or just another imperfect person like you or I, in a situation that's going to become more complicated before the end of the page?
1
u/VickiHopkinsAuthor 6d ago
Frankly, I think personal growth during the storyline makes for a compelling character. It's the end product by the time you reach "The End."
1
u/Wolf_of_the_North64 6d ago
Backstory and Relatability, Like Anakin Skywalker I can relate to his conflict, the emotional pain he feels, and feeling as though the system is against him for me as someone who is Autistic and has ADHD as well as Anxiety, I can relate to that and somewhat feel for him.
1
u/Odd-Contract-7541 4d ago
I feel like it usually comes down to their moral Outlook, whatever it may be, Is earnestly grounded in caring deeply about something. If you've got that foundation, a good storyteller can usually convince an audience that they have equivalent philosophical weight to everybody else.
1
6
u/SomeNegotiation1337 8d ago
I think it’s a mix of personality, internal logic, and the friction they create with others around them. Even if you’re writing a villain, the attachment vectors remain similar as they would be for any other character. A villain can be funny, strange to the point to being endearing, intelligent, morally complex (in a way that carries emotional gravity), or, if they’re an antagonist, even just just genuinely good, likeable people in an impossible situation. I think the thing, though, is not to mistake morality for what makes a character compelling. Protagonist, hero, antagonist, and villain are just roles. What kind of person are they outside of their role? Does the brutal, darwinistic crime lord enjoy playing the harp and learning to cook? Does the mad genius Bond-type villainness genuinely just like making useless gadgets sometimes for fun that don’t hurt anyone? Does the stoic, war-of-attrition, austere general like putting too much cheese on her food and have a 12-step hair care routine? Everybody is a person, ultimately.