What makes a good character?

[Pablo.C.S]

Hey everyone,

I'm genuinely curious, what traits and attributes do you personally consider necessary for great characters and characterization? And why do you consider that to be so?

Your opinion can be what you consider great for a specific story genre, or just great attributes in general, isolated from any particular genre.

Eg: being reactive, being proactive, being relatable, being quirky, being engaging, being fun, having a complex character arc etc.

Conversely, what do you think makes for bad characterization and characters, what character traits do you believe hurts a story or character?

tell me what you think.

[Iris-Grimoire]

Depth, really. No matter the story, a character that is just their introduction text is useful, but not interesting on their own or memorable. Depth can be a backstory, character traits and quirks, their motivation, but it's additions to their original premise(they like fighting, they travel the world to meet people, they subvert expectations of a stereotype, etc) that matter. One of my favorite attributes, for example, is changing around a "big ego/boastful" character to not be some braggart or a liar, but actually they have all these great achievements, and either need to learn to be more humble about them because of how they express it, or they genuinely use their feats and stories to try and inspire others and genuinely wants someone else to surpass them eventually.

You hurt a character the most by not giving your reader a reason to care if they live or die. It can be lack of depth as mentioned above, or you can make them unlikeable unintentionally and that can really hurt if your story is about them being right or justified in certain aspects.

[RiidDisBuk1]

I'd say watch this video for great examples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM1tUwpy-yQ

[akemikae]

I'm not very good at coming up with broad words for characterization, but I can say that the best way to make a good character is to make them flawed, as well as being good at things. There's nothing more boring than a character that isn't capable of having proper emotions.

I guess for an example one of my main characters, Krisle, is a really nice sweet, small spoken guy, but he gets very easily annoyed at people and can be a bit of an ass sometimes. But it just makes them more like a person I'd say.

[Maps]

They have to be relatable and not weak for me. If I can resonate with someone, I’m gripped. If someone is all feeble and allowing anything to come their way, I’m gone.

[J-Moor-Heath]

I second the thing about depth. Oftentimes, if a character isn't memorable or real enough, your story won't hit as hard as it could. It won't be as impactful or memorable. Also, I don't always feel it's enough to just give them emotions. They have to actually look like they feel it. Hearkens to the "show, don't tell" thing. Characters feel more real to me if they have those reactions. Obviously, comics have an advantage over novels in this case because you can literally visually show said reactions, but a well-written novel usually effects me more. (I could be biased, though, since I write novels and not comics)

[GabiWolf]

Depths is indeed important, but also for me psychology is. Personality is shaped by events in ones life. What I find to be unbelievable is when a character goes through tons of trauma, such as constant battle or other violence and neglect but it has no effect on them. If you where abandoned, constantly bullied, pushed to the fringes of society, I can’t believe you would be a very optimistic happy go lucky type of person.
The backstory especially if traumatic should match up with a characters personality. Of course the character should also have depths and be able to express their feelings and think critically. To me character building is all about emotion. I want to feel something and In want the character to feel something too. I do like rooting for the underdog, and watching characters do things despite their flaws and doubt.

[Zzzleepymonster]

I agree with the others that depth is very important -- it's what separates a character from all of the cookie-cutter ones that most avid readers do not find relatable or interesting.

But another factor that I think is crucial is a character's capacity for growth. If the characters of a story remain the same (personality-wise) from beginning to end, then the depiction is either unrealistic or the story has managed to become so anticlimactic that the characters are not given the opportunity to develop. Regardless of whether a character changes for the better or takes a darker path, there needs to be some change. Characters who are utterly stagnant are usually unrelatable and, well, boring. It doesn't reflect how complex living creatures (i.e. humans) are and how their interactions with the world around them affect them internally.

[arcojawa]

Metering out how quickly we learn about the character is something I don't often see done well. We usually either get a complete sense of what kind of character they are right away -which is too fast- or halfway into the story we'll get this abrupt context about the character that seemly comes out of nowhere. A little foreshadowing goes a long way but also I don't want to be able to understand everything instantly...

[MeganUosiu]

The SMA guide to creating a character was certainly helpful for me:

“World’s biggest…?” Creating the main character / Japanese Manga 101 – #005

“What the XXX!” is the key to success – Japanese Manga 101 – #006 Character...

tl;dr Contrast in a character is what makes them interesting.
Make sure all your characters have both positive and negative traits (be it a hero or a villain).

[marrowmoody]

Depending on the format, obviously the way in which you introduce a character can make or break them/the story as a whole sometimes.
Also finding a nice balance of when they are proactive and reactive. I know a lot of people tend to complain about passive characters, but I also find it just as unrelatable when a character inserts themselves into every little thing or can't leave space for other characters/elements in the story to develop.
It's good to allow the world they reside in its own presence, so they are not standing on a blank page essentially.
Hm, and finally, I'd say flaws are definitely good to add depth (no one is perfect), though, only if they are reasonable. A tragic backstory and a plethora of unlucky "quirks" don't count. You tend to not want to have a helpless/useless character either, much less protagonist. Also making a character completely unlikable makes it frustrating to read and root for them in a story. If the reader is relieved by the idea of the main character dying off, there might be a problem.

[kitschensyngk]

Don't make them into stereotypes or strawmen or butt monkeys. Characters are what your readers will invest in the most, and they're not going to care about somebody who's only good for a cheap laugh.

[DiegoPalacios]

Many people already mentioned depth in this thread, so i will add another point.

One of the most important things is that your characters should feel "real". For that you must give them a personality with good and bad qualities (nobody is perfect or perfecly imperfect), struggles and motivations. (everyone wants something and has a reason to want it).

[sssfrs]

Physiology is one of the most important aspects of a character for me, too. A healthy circulatory system, functional kidneys, and lots of bones are all elements of characterization that draw me in and make the character feel real to me. I can never relate to characters who lack skin or a pituitary gland.

[hannahlaine]

Well developed personality. Something that makes them relatable.

Even if you don't tell the back story to your audience, still writie it down for a reference. That way in every situation you can take into account where a character is coming from. This makes them more consistent.

[Kiweevil]

Actually having a motive for one. Examples, why does this character act/dress/talk this way? Why do they want to do this/that action?

I see too many characters that are so surface level-only that it really makes me sad. They've got a cool design and skillset and all, but they fall flat in the areas of individuality and development. I like the idea of having a thread that brings light to the subject.