What makes your chracter feel like a living, breathing person to you?

[DesiredUsernameTaken]

I've come to realize that a lot of people have different opinions on what a character who feels "real" is. There are easy definitions to a 1-dimensional character vs 3-dimensional character, but the truth is so many of us use these terms as we see fit to get our opinion on a character across. I've seen arguments between audience members for certain stories where one side feels Character A is very realistic, and the other side feels they're incredibly flat.

We interpret "realness" and "being a person" in very different ways that doesn't always align with the conventional advice given to writers on making fully-fleshed out characters. For me, it almost has nothing to do with personality and aspirations. It's the little things in body language, habits and quirks, stuff that I could observe in real life if I were to people-watch sitting at the park.

On a personal level, what are the defining moments where your characters, or someone else's characters, cross from fictional to "real"?

Edit: Additional questions!
Do your characters start off real to you the moment you conceive them? Does it take time? Do you feel the point at which a character is real to you, is different from your readers, and how would you go about reconciling what's real to you vs what's real to others?

[Bokyongyo]

Goals, flaws and insecurities.

For me nothing makes a character feel more real than their goals, insecurities and certain inherent character flaws that they show, even if those flaws are in a way very negative, if it feels emotionally engaging and is written well and fits the character specifically, I'm usually a stickler for that.

I can give a good example,
In Attack on Titan the main character of Eren, I'll be completely honest with you,
for the longest time I wasn't a fan. Did I sympathize with him? Yeah, but I never considered him a favorite of mine.

But keeping things relatively spoiler free, something happens in a later season of the show that completely flipped my view of Eren, how his goal, insecurities and flaws completely molded together to create something that I never expected

This make great characters to me, but something that is usually forgotten is stuff like that takes time, some characters can't be fully developed and understood in under a chapter, this can take multiple chapters for it to all come together in order for a lot of those little moments to make sense in the grand scheme of things.

[Yulek]

ohh that's interesting actually.

soo a bit of a tangent maybe, but the 1D vs 3D thing often ignores that a 1D character can be very intentional. It can become a proxy for the reader to project on.
basically a husk with little to offer, so the audience members can freely fill the gaps themselves and experience the story through those eyes.

I don't find them inherently bad if they make sense in the context and setting. oftentimes in games and or wishfulfilling stories (isekai were like that a lot at first)

---

3D becomes more relevant when you actually, as a consumer, want to experience what it's like to be in other shoes.
the most important thing there, imo, is consistency.

like... if the character doesn't act like you would, that will be fun, as long as it's the character's decision, and not the plot's... if that makes sense?

as soon as a character has enough personality to make believable choices in the story/has agency, they become real to me

[DokiDokiTsuna]

When it comes to other people's characters feeling 'real' and 3-dimensional, I think that doesn't really happen until I get a chance to see them in different emotional states: sad, angry, happy, whatever their default state is, etc..

This doesn't have to be deep ('angry' can be something as simple as watching the character interact with a coworker they don't like), it just has to make sense. All their emotional states should blend together in a logical way, where you can point out the connecting threads. Like, 'ah, this situation makes them angry because it reminds them of that situation, in which they were too afraid to do anything, and their pride won't let them forget it'. When you have enough information to rationalize a character's behavior in that way, I think that's the point at which they become well-developed.

Sometimes writers try to give that information in ways that are kind of low-effort, though, and I think that's where things get confusing for fans. To give a common example, the 'positive sunshine sweetheart MC', a pretty popular character archetype.
Most writers try to round them out by showing occasions where they become genuinely angry or sad, or even mean, in direct opposition to their default state. Which isn't a bad strategy on paper.

What makes it bad is when they don't try hard enough to make it make sense: like, only a single person can make them mad (not a single type of person, literally just one character) or the lesson they 'learn' from becoming angry is to just never be angry again, instead of how to understand and manage a normal human emotion.
Or maybe the signal to the audience that the character has left their default state is to say 'I'm mad' and then proceed to act exactly the same. ^^; These things are fine when played for laughs, but when played straight they tend to cause problems, and often make the character seem more 1-dimensional, not less. Because they're simply not realistic.

In my own work, however, characters become 'real' when they start to speak for themselves. ^^ As in, instead of me carefully crafting what they say to try and teach the reader what kind of person they are, the character's lines start to pop into my head fully formed. They begin to teach me about themselves as I write, all their likes and dislikes and idiosyncrasies...at that point, it's up to me to just pay attention to what they're saying for future reference, and edit it so that the story stays on track. They become kind of 'autonomous', in a sense.

I've seen arguments between audience members for certain stories where one side feels Character A is very realistic, and the other side feels they're incredibly flat.

I'm gonna be honest: I think most of those arguments boil down to people simply mixing up definitions, and deciding that anything that sounds negative is an apt description for a character they don't like (for example, deciding a female who has a bigger role in the story than they prefer is a 'Mary Sue').

In this case, I think a lot of people mix up 'flat' with 'static'. Some characters can be incredibly complex and nuanced and interesting, and just stay exactly the way they are throughout the story (you learn more about them, but they remain the same person).
But because people are used to 'character development arcs' and dynamism in general, their first instinct is that something is wrong with a major character who doesn't change. So some may start calling them 'flat' or 'underdeveloped' compared to the more dynamic characters, even when it's not necessarily true.

[BOMB]

Choice

I believe characters, one-dimensional or not, can feel real when they have real choices. It's true that characters don't need to be in control over anything for their story to be good, but a good character has to have Choice and a say in what they do, how they do it, and why. Without these things, a character is simply following a script, and anyone can do that.

This is why most of my stories aren't grand scale. I rarely write anything that involves the fate of the world or even a city. What I try to focus on are the choices my characters make because they speak much louder than anything else.

So yeah, choices make a character feel real, in my opinion.

(Bonus: Dialog is a close second, but choices are still in first.)

[DesiredUsernameTaken]

In Attack on Titan the main character of Eren, I'll be completely honest with you, for the longest time I wasn't a fan. Did I sympathize with him? Yeah, but I never considered him a favorite of mine.

I feel ya there . AOT wasn't for me, but I've seen many say Eren is one of the best-written characters in the manga and anime world. I've actually wanted to get into it just to see Eren develop, since so many swear by him. xD

This make great characters to me, but something that is usually forgotten is stuff like that takes time, some characters can't be fully developed and understood in under a chapter, this can take multiple chapters for it to all come together in order for a lot of those little moments to make sense in the grand scheme of things.

Very true! I've seen critiques before from people who seem to want to know everything about a character and why they are reacting to others the way they do within the first couple chapters. It's always confused me, but I suppose those readers are used to different executions of characters.

Thank you for answering!

[DesiredUsernameTaken]

soo a bit of a tangent maybe, but the 1D vs 3D thing often ignores that a 1D character can be very intentional. It can become a proxy for the reader to project on. basically a husk with little to offer, so the audience members can freely fill the gaps themselves and experience the story through those eyes.

Yes! From what I've seen, some feel a main character should always be 3-dimensional. 1-dimensional mains seem common in YA, particularly for projection. But I've also heard of other opinions from people who seem to think that any 1-dimensional character in a story at all is just...useless, and shouldn't be there? And these are side-characters, and extras. I never quite understood that, and it's one of the reasons I started thinking about this and wondering when people see others, especially fictional characters, as people.

And yes, it makes sense!

[DesiredUsernameTaken]

To give a common example, the 'positive sunshine sweetheart MC', a pretty popular character archetype.

Great example! I see the same issues crop up quite often. As for seeing all of the emotional states of a character, I think I'm the same, to some degree. I don't often see what I stated in my original post often when it comes down to novels, where there's less focus on body language (it's easier in something like comics, or movies), but for most characters by the time I see all of their emotions I've known them for a little while.

In my own work, however, characters become 'real' when they start to speak for themselves. ^^ As in, instead of me carefully crafting what they say to try and teach the reader what kind of person they are, the character's lines start to pop into my head fully formed.

That sounds like a fun, intuitive way to approach them, by letting them approach you instead. As for people mixing up definitions, that's a good point, and it probably happens on a frequent basis (with everything and anything, for that matter). Sometimes it all comes down to lacking the vocabulary, or just not being able to recall the right word in the moment, which is an issue for me all the time. Thanks for sharing!

---

Choice

I asked my friend the same questions I have here, and she said the same thing . Her characters, and other characters, start feeling more real once they either show agency, or gain agency.

I rarely write anything that involves the fate of the world or even a city. What I try to focus on are the choices my characters make because they speak much louder than anything else.

Is this because it feels like there isn't much choice once it's more grand-scale? Is the choice too obvious at that point, and can't be personalized as much?

Thank you!

[UrMom]

History, style of speaking, habits, flaws, nature, fears, education level, opinions, style of body language, interests, how they dress, possible disabilities and/or mental issues. (Learning disabilities, speech problems, physical issues, mental illnesses, conditions.) It's a lot of things, there are a lot of details that go into making a person, so I feel that should also apply to characters if you want to make them like people. History and nature are big ones, I stand by the belief that we are a mix of nature and nurture, how we grow up coupled with how we handle those situations make up a large part of who we are as adults. Applying that to a character can help make them more human imo. Relatability and likability don't matter since not everyone in the world is like that, they just have to feel like practical, human characters that fit into the story you're telling and the setting.

As far as other people's characters, I'm embarrassed to say I don't normally think about realism. From a consumer standpoint I read/watch something as a whole, as long as the characters are entertaining I don't really care about much else. Even for deeper character studies I tend to think about what information the story is giving me about these characters, how they feel, how I feel and what I'm seeing as a whole, but never "Is this character realistic?". My consumer brain is very different from my creator brain.

Do your characters start off real to you the moment you conceive them? Does it take time? Do you feel the point at which a character is real to you, is different from your readers, and how would you go about reconciling what's real to you vs what's real to others?

My characters start out with a limited base, appearance and some basic personality traits. After that is done I start applying "why?" to their design, like "Why are they like this? Why do they dress the way they do? Why are they in this location? Why do they have this mindset?" etc., along with interests and such. Sometimes they have goals, sometimes they don't, not every character has to be ambitious.
I don't really know how my readers see my characters as far as how realistic they are, they tell me what characters they like or if they're being stupid or creepy, but I don't know if they see my characters like how I see them. I'm sure my viewpoint is different from many, they may even see it differently from eachother, everyone interprets fiction in their own way and you can't expect them to see it the way you do. Unless the interpretation is super outlandish I let my readers see the characters how they want to, it's no problem for me as long as no one is being harmed.

[Sad1000enial]

FLAWS, QUIRKS, TICKS, GOALS, DREAMS, EMOTIONS, PERSONALITY TEST

I use this stuff, and the characters seem real to readers, on my other acc I have a few

[BOMB]

Is this because it feels like there isn't much choice once it's more grand-scale? Is the choice too obvious at that point, and can't be personalized as much?

Yes and no.

Characters can still have plenty of choices to make even if they have to save the world. For instance, if a hero has to stop a man from jumping off a building. He may catch him before he hits the ground, try to talk him down before he jumps, or maybe he lets the man die. Each variation says something different. But I do believe grander scale stories make it harder to incorporate as much choice as I prefer to have. And those choices aren't really as fulfilling either because the Character is being forced to make those decisions rather than a story where the character doesnst have to do anything but finds purpose pleasures or meaning in things they start themselves.

[Ordinaryaverageguy]

Real people are like that to me & maybe to everyone (I've never actually asked), sort of like background characters & "just there", until you have a chance to sit & listen to them tell you about themselves.

[dewarcomics]

My characters start to feel "real" , as it were, when I plan story points but as I'm drawing it goes in a different direction like they have a will of their own. It feels more organic and less of trying to shoe horn in scenes (that will always end up bad).

As the comic progresses their personality gets more refined and I get a better instinct of what they will or won't do. Thus resulting in the previous mentioned point when they "go off script". Instead of fighting it I embrace it.

[Kaydreamer]

For me, it's consistency and small details. Things like what makes a character laugh, what catches their interest, their body language and posture, the way they speak, what other characters they gravitate towards. That, and what they get up to when they're alone, too - that says a lot about a person.

I also love it when little details about a character seem at odds with the type of person that character appears to be on the surface. Sort of like my stern-seeming Elven Admiral having a fondness for macarons and ridiculous fruity cocktails... Or my gym-bro character being a huge softy who loves dogs and keeps a chicken coop on a spaceship because it's the only way to ensure he has a steady supply of eggs. ("Nature's protein shakes!")

But because people are used to 'character development arcs' and dynamism in general, their first instinct is that something is wrong with a major character who doesn't change.

I think a big part of that is coming from people who read a lot of YA, since a teen or child character is pretty obviously going to grow and change, plus a big part of those stories is about changing in positive ways.

All of my main cast are adult characters. They have their ups and downs and challenges, but most of them don't change enormously as people throughout the story. Nor should they have to. There's a lot that's compelling about watching how a person overcomes adversity. They don't need to change in order to make their story believable.

I have a couple of exceptions, but I'm not giving everyone a character development arc if they don't need one. It's unrealistic.

[DesiredUsernameTaken]

It's a lot of things, there are a lot of details that go into making a person,

As far as other people's characters, I'm embarrassed to say I don't normally think about realism.

Oooh, interesting, your approach to your characters vs a believable character from others is very different. You make a nice note about how consumer brains can differ from creator brains, too. That's true on many levels for me. I tend not to think too much about realism when I'm reading a story, either, no worries! xD If I overthink it too much, that's when I get into the small details. But I try not to as I would be causing my own disruption to the story.

They have their ups and downs and challenges, but most of them don't change enormously as people throughout the story. Nor should they have to. There's a lot that's compelling about watching how a person overcomes adversity. They don't need to change in order to make their story believable.

I always thought a lot of anime shows, cartoons, manga (which a number of anime shows are adapted from anyway) and some comics were good examples of this. Characters can be wildly popular and beloved and many of them, I feel, barely grow throughout a season, if at all. Avatar: The Last Airbender series had many main characters who were "flat" when I looked at them from a critical standpoint, but they still felt believable as people within the reality of the avatarverse. They didn't particularly grow, but they were challenged in many ways and have had a loyal and growing fanbase for a long time.

Thank you everyone for answering! It's been really fun seeing the varying approaches you take as creators and how you see characters

[iamvcdgamer]

well, it all starts with the character's faces to me. You can easily determine a person's personality right from their reactions or facial expressions. We see this a lot in movies, where for instance, something happens in a room full of people. Some may cringe, some may laugh, some may smile awkwardly depending on the situation.
What really makes a character real is when they exhibit traits or react just like how we do in reality no matter the story setting. Whether, it's in a medieval or futuristic atmosphere. In other words, once a character is able to act or do something realistic that someone could identify as realistic, that character is less 'flat' and more '3- dimensional'.
Hope you found this information useful.

[frgmnt]

A lot of the stuff I find important has been already mentioned, so I guess I only have this to add: I like it when there are hints the character has a life outside of what the plot demands. Friends who don't help them further the narrative, relatives, parents even, interests or dreams that aren't directly relevant to the story or their core character arc, etc.
Of course, going on chapter-long detours about something completely irrelevant to the plot is going to be a bore, but I like it when that stuff is just sprinkled here and there inbetween plot-related stuff.

Writing characters is quite difficult for me - well, I'm an artist first and writer far second, so... They feel like a person in my head, but it's incredibly difficult to convey their personhood in words. Formulating actual goals, picking out character traits, and the worst part, making sure I'm sticking to those while actually writing... I'm not good at these, at all.

[Breezy]

We interpret "realness" and "being a person" in very different ways that doesn't always align with the conventional advice given to writers on making fully-fleshed out characters. For me, it almost has nothing to do with personality and aspirations. It's the little things in body language, habits and quirks, stuff that I could observe in real life if I were to people-watch sitting at the park.

I couldn't agree with you more that personality and aspirations rarely makes a character feel real. I find too often authors relying on two or three personality traits to define their characters and it just feels flat. Like the "shy, kind, hard-working omega who just wants to find someone who loves them". I think actions ultimately define characters. This can be big or small actions that inform who they really are. You mention body language or quirks, but there is also what they like to do for fun or in their free time. If your character just "likes hanging out with his friends", I'm going to think that is pretty boring. River from Soft Touch does such a wonderful job at clearly defining their characters. Like Aiden in their story is constantly described has having a "huffing laugh" and loves soccer. Honestly, Soft Touch is one of my favorite novels on Tapas.

Soft Touch | Tapas

Do your characters start off real to you the moment you conceive them? Does it take time? Do you feel the point at which a character is real to you, is different from your readers, and how would you go about reconciling what's real to you vs what's real to others?

I think most of my characters come alive for me pretty quickly. I don't know how my readers agree, but it really bothers me to have even side characters that are just there for exposition dumps or to advance the plot. In the planning stage of my novel, I may not have a clear idea of what their personality and quirks will be, but once I start writing, it usually just comes naturally. For example, one of the witches in my story is Addy. I had ZERO intention of her being anything more than a plot device when I wrote my outline, but as soon as I started writing scenes with her I instantly fell in love with her to-the-point manner of speaking and her "I call it as I see it and I see everything" attitude.

Here is the link to my story for anyone who is interested!

Nonconforming | Tapas

[jkb4753]

Formulating actual goals, picking out character traits, and the worst part, making sure I'm sticking to those while actually writing... I'm not good at these, at all.

Ugh, me neither! I feel like a lot of my character background doesn't make it out of the story's outline. Maybe that's a good thing? I've read people argue that "the reader doesn't need to know all the background research you did for the characters."

[AmysGames]

My characters become real to me when they start making decisions I didn't expect

Honestly though, I think for me it's like... when I can clearly tell them apart from other characters? Like, if all the characters in the story seem pretty much the same, and/or if a character just fills a certain stereotype, then it feels less like a character and more like a message. But when different characters have different thoughts, opinions, feelings, etc., then they start feeling more real.