Rachel

Creating characters was both the easiest and most difficult part of collaborating on a novel. It is also what I would do completely differently if Tiff and I were beginning from scratch, or if I wanted to start writing with J.K. Rowling who keeps bugging me to work with her. I’m like, “Chill, J.K.! I’m super busy!”

Characterization was easiest because we did it wrong. Kind of like how math is easy for me.

Since this started out somewhat as a joke, we began with characters who are common tropes and twisted them to fit our style. I feel like Tiff had a clearer idea of who these people were from the get-go. In fact, the creation process highlighted some key differences in our brain matter. She overflows with ideas, where I sort of plod through them. Turns out, we are the exact opposite when it comes to writing—I throw some words on the page, and she carefully selects them. There are pros and cons to each, naturally, but having two different styles for every step of the process has been useful.

Anyway, our ensemble characters were formed in a couple of hours.

After the initial concepts, we followed a bare-bones outline of character development. We did a few small exercises—described their bedrooms, for example—but nothing too in-depth. For our main characters, we followed it up by taking the Meyers-Briggs personality test. This was more of a check-up to ensure we were on the same page, and for the most part, we were! When we weren’t, we talked more and wrote down our compromises. (“FINE! No extraterrestrials. But I want to go on record that you are severely limiting our options!”)

We love our characters, even the villainous rascals. As we were going along, though, I had panicky moments. I had this nagging feeling that our ensemble cast could get cut without any real effect on the novel. And if characters aren’t necessary—no matter how charming they are—people aren’t going to care about them.

Way too late, we pulled ourselves back to the drawing board. As mentioned before, I came across K.M. Weiland’s work, and I realized that our characters were AWESOME—but incomplete. So I took what Tiff and I had and did extensive additional work on the main character. I posted it, and Tiff reviewed and made changes as necessary. (Removing space stations and whatnot.)

There was also the issue of working in back story without the dreaded info-dump. All info-dumping in the first couple chapters was rightfully cut. I assured myself and Tiff that the characters would unfold during the rest of the story. And while their personalities absolutely did, their motivations did not. As lively and charming as they are (y’all, our characters rule), they needed roots.

Don’t get me wrong, the initial ‘anything goes’ characterization made for fun writing. These people did whatever we wanted! With what we had, we could craft some wonderful tender and funny moments.

But we failed by not grounding them in their purpose as it related to the theme. Currently, after our first draft is in beta, we are having to go back and put a lot of work into their character sheets. This is making revision tough, and is requiring gallons of coffee and reassurance from  RuPaul.

So here’s what I would do differently, and what I suggest for all fledgling novelists. I would begin with the theme—answer the question, “Why are we/am I writing this book?” Then I would create characters while always asking myself and/or collaborator, “How does this character support the theme?” For Tiff and me, this was difficult because our theme changed. I’d elaborate, but I don’t want to give anything away.

We didn’t totally mess up. We are, after all, brilliant. Archetypes aren’t a bad way to start, but I wish we had understood their roles in the plot more fully from the beginning. There are several schools of thought on character roles, and we have landed on transforming our ensemble cast into the following: Protagonist, Antagonist, Mentor, Sidekick, Skeptic, and Love Interest. To clarify, initially we had simply Protagonist, Antagonist, Love Interest, and a whole bunch of sidekicks.

To romantic writers (not writers of romance, but writers who feel the need to be carried away by their work), this may feel formulaic. But it’s not! All stories have structure, and our human brains seem to like things a certain way. As nebulous as the rules can feel, good story-telling does have them, whether the reader notices or not. So though it felt wonderful to ‘take that rule book and throw it out the window,’ our first draft would have been better if we hadn’t thrown it quite so far.

Summary: It’s fine to toss that rule book out during the outline phase. But it needs to come back before the drafting phase.

Moving on/back to archetypes:

There is soooooooooooo much out there, and I, although brilliant, am no expert. If you are creating some characters or tinkering with the human genome in order to build a vast army but you want your vast army to be multi-faceted and entertaining, I would suggest browsing different schools of thought and taking what you want from each. Your characters don’t have to fall neatly into any category, but becoming familiar with how people (real or imagined) have been categorized can yield excellent material for dynamic characterization.  Nobody fits 100% into an archetype—but everyone has reasons why they are the exception or the rule. And figuring out those reasons is part of the thrill of being God a writer.

Jungian Archetypes – from the dude who started the whole idea of humans having personalities.

The Enneagram –a more contemporary handling of personalities that blossomed in the 20^th century. It is currently my favorite.

Myers Briggs – the most common in pop culture, as far as I can tell.

So what about the roles these fabulous personalities play in your work? Again, lots of thoughts here:

The basic five—commonly used in literature

Dramatica –eight character roles, including the fascinating ‘contagonist,’ unique to this theory. Also what I plan on naming my next pet. Currently my favorite, but no lie, it’s daunting.

A slightly different take from YA author Martina Boone

A broader school of thought geared towards screenwriters, but useful for all writers 

And these are just websites! Entire books have been written on characterization alone! And it’s no wonder–digging into your characters’ psyches and their roles in your story is exhilarating. Caveat: you may morph into an armchair psychologist during research.  (Different from a psychologist for armchairs, who have more issues than you might expect.)

If you come across any other helpful tidbits, please share in the comments.

Up next (for me): Plotting in Collaboration