I alluded to this in another thread, but I'm currently having problems with writing a character named Angeline. Angeline is supposed to be an Extreme Doormat. To get specific, she was raised by manipulative Control Freak parents, and has been told from the day of her birth who she is supposed to be and what she is supposed to do, and Lit help her if she disagrees. Not helping matters is that some of the things they tell her that she's supposed to be are blatantly wrong.*

So she basically lives both in fear of them and to please them nearly every instant of her existence.

The problem is, I keep writing her doing things that feel out of character to me—or at least indicative of character development she hasn't had yet. First she sneaks out very early in the morning (4 AM-ish) at the insistence of her best friend, but only after he promises her that she can come back and do some chores after she sees what he wants to show her. But I wrote a scene not too far back where she refuses to sneak out at night with the same person. Part of me thinks the "she'll do chores when she gets back" is enough justification (or would be to her), but as the same time, I feel like it's too abrupt. Later the same day, she wants to visit the hospital to find out if they've treated an injured person (whom she'd been obsessing over most of the day), and I worried that was too forward an action for her—but she was obsessed with the guy, and she quickly reneges when she realizes she'll be late home and get a strict talking-to. But at the same time, I still worried.

I've been thinking all day that I should know my characters better than anyone else, but that's not necessarily the case. And I tried to analyze for myself why the actions felt out-of-character to me, but couldn't put my finger on it. Especially since she's already established as being more comfortable about said best friend, and both things occur in his presence. But I'm still torn.

So I ask yon tropers, in the blue-green ungulate version: What do you think makes actions seem out-of-character, and how can one work about those problems?

"Proto-Indo-European makes the damnedest words related. It's great. It's the Kevin Bacon of etymology." ~Madrugada

Honestly? I think the idea of "out of character" gets tossed around too often. People aren't as simple as fiction makes them seem, and we all do uncharacteristic things sometimes. A character behaving out of the ordinary once in a while, particularly with an explanation, isn't a big deal to my mind. What bothers me is when the description of a character and their actual behavior regularly don't match up - then you've got a problem.

I suspect some other people's mileage may vary on this one, though.

Is the character not yet a fully-grown adult? If not, then there you go; the character can try all kinds of things. If so, then see .

As for me, the actions that seem blatantly out-of-character would be things that would come across as Uncanny Valley in horror works. If it's not horror, yet seems uncanny, then it's either surrealist or a mistake. Then again, I'm not particularly good at noticing what's in-character and out-of-character. >.>

tout est sacré pour un sacreur (Avatar by Rappu!)

^^ Well, that's the thing. Unless you're going to spend a dozen pages psychoanalyzing your character, we can't know every single aspect of their personality. Hence, characterization: what they say, what they do, and what others say about the character highlight that character's defining traits. Additional characterization can change/elaborate upon those traits. @OP, as long as you make it not implausible that your character would do those actions, it would be fine by me. If, for example, your character's every thought was marked by a constant underlying fear of her parents' retribution, then a few eyebrows might be raised. If that same constant underlying fear is addressed by the person who's convincing her to sneak out of her house—"come on, they'll never know," "this is really important," etc., and there's a bit of consideration on her side, then it's good.

Well, in the end, they're your characters. You own them. They do what you think they would do, not what I think might be potentially justified.

Whatcha gonna do, little buckaroo? | i be pimpin' madoka fics

@Energy Excell: A thought that's been at the back of my mind all day. Maybe due to the complexities of human personalities, well, maybe she should be allowed a few more outgoing moments.

@Chubert: Unfortunately, that's sort of the case. She is often worrying about what they'd think about something she's doing. She does have a small willingness to defy them, but she's panic-stricken through most of those defiant moments. There's one ongoing deception which she participates in throughout most of the story, which is visiting a man her father dislikes because he's sheltering that injured character I mentioned in the OP. (Her realizing that she's doing this is part of her Character Development.) But I think it's partially to the extent that she's such an Extreme Doormat, her best friend can coerce her too... Or... I dunno.

@D Jay: She could try a variety of personalities (to put it inelegantly), but she wouldn't do it unless Mother and Father told her to. But yes, she's a teenager.

edited 19th Apr '11 10:22:55 PM by FreezairForALimitedTime

"Proto-Indo-European makes the damnedest words related. It's great. It's the Kevin Bacon of etymology." ~Madrugada

Pedantic correction: It's pronounced "nur-jex-ell". There's a long story

behind it, but I just wanted to state that it is not some kind of 133t-speak way of writing "energy excell".

edited 19th Apr '11 10:57:29 PM by nrjxll

@ Frezir. I am writing a guide on the subject of developing personlity here is a quote of mine that I am sure will help you :)

Character Autonomy

This concept means “the capability of making decisions without coercion”. In other words you need to remember that your characters must have their own dreams and goals. You need to portray characters as how they would act if they were real, as you want them to act, but taking into account their own goals. Not as what you want them to act for the sole purpose of shaping the plot. Unless it’s justified in the plot; characters won’t betray their objectives nor their personalities spontaneously. That’s the difference between Character Derailment and Character Development.

For example if your character is a Big Bad whose main goal in his life is to kill the hero. If you make that character suddenly and without explanation forgive the hero and join a ballet academy; this would be considered as Character Derailment . On the contrary if you portray The Hero redeeming the villain by understanding his Freudian Excuse and the villain gradually realizing the error in his ways, this would be Character Development.

Autonomy is also the difference between a character that is just a puppet; an extension of your will and a person. Characters that are true people will act as they want, not as you wish they acted. Sometimes you are going to disagree with your character’s reasoning or actions. But that’s how a realistic character would act. This doesn’t mean that you won’t be able to control your characters. You can make your character do whatever you want without losing characterization if you take care of not betraying what makes your character autonomous

edited 19th Apr '11 11:18:04 PM by FallenLegend

Make your hearth shine through the darkest night; let it transform hate into kindness, evil into justice, and loneliness into love.

It feels like your contradicting yourself. At one point you say that you need to make your characters act as if they were human (which means that they would do things thst are unexpected) and then you say that you need to make sure to write the character strictly within their goals.

I don't agree with this idea of "Character Autonomy." To me that comes off as passive writing. At the end of the day, the charactrer is yours and the story is yours. You control what happens. I personally outline every part of the story, writing in enough actions/decisions of my characters to make sure that different sides of their personality is being showcased without too much derailment.

I can't write like that. There's no freedom, no magic. Everything feels pre=determined, and the purpose of every scene is blatant. I stand with the stance that Legend seems to be taking. That you need to be able to know your characters well enough to know how they'd react to certain scenarios.

As for the original thing. If your character is defined only as a door mat, then of course this is OOC. But having her act OOC with that just shows that there are more dimensions to her than that. Development is only derailment when we don't show a reason for the character to act this way.

I can understand how that can sound as a cold, technical way of writing, but it works for me. It helps me to avoid issues like the one Freezair is having. I always work on my characters before I begin planning out the plot, so I already know them well enough to see how they will react when I put them in a setting.

To Freezair: I think you should try to write some of Angeline's interactions with her parents and then see how you feel when you put them up against her moments of rebellion. You should just work out their dynamics and see how you feel.

I disagree umpredictability and autonomy arent contradictory. Both are part of being Human.

A human will act unpredictable but will never betray their own goals and dreams. The limit og being impredictable is of course the character's goals.

Great writers agree with this concept. For example the creators of Avatar the last airbender. You can do whatever youwant withyour character ( obviously). But if youbetray that character autonomy , that character will be in character detailment no exceptions.

• interview avatar the last airbender

Tell me about the heroine of the story, Korra. What’s she like?

• Di Martino (co creator of Avatar): Korra, we kind of describe her as a fiery waterbender. She’s very pugnacious. Kind of in your face. We wanted to create a new Avatar that was completely the opposite of Aang. So, whereas Aang was the peaceful, nomadic Airbender guy, she’s very tough, very headstrong, not scared to get into a fight, and kind of picks fights with people too sometimes. So she’s definitely totally the opposite of Aang 'so it has been kind of fun to write her character and put her in situations that Aang never would have gotten into

• Note how he told us about how Korra does things Aang would never do. Question why didnt they simply made Aang do whatever they wanted.... Answer because that would betray the character's autonomy. You could make aang as bloodthirty as the punuiher because it is " your charter" but that is Out of character regardless because aang is peaceful. That doesn't mean the character can't be unpredictable.Remener the ending of the last airbender? Aand never betrayed his ideals and yet we as an audience never knew what he could do to ozai ( unpredictability ).

The only way to make a 360 change without betraying autonomy is through character development,

edited 20th Apr '11 11:04:15 AM by FallenLegend

Make your hearth shine through the darkest night; let it transform hate into kindness, evil into justice, and loneliness into love.

I didn't mean to suggest that the idea of Character Autonomy and giving your character a goal was contradictory. The way you worded it in your first response felt you were contradicting yourself. I'm sorry.

But, I still don't understand what you are driving at here. Aang and Korra are two different characters on what I am sure will be two different shows (I don't really know, I haven't seen Avatar: The Last Airbender in years). The creaters of Korra's show made her "very tough, very headstrong," for a reason, just like they made Aang a "peaceful, nomadic," sort of person. These personalities will drive the story later. I don't see how this is any different from what I said.

Well the explanation it's part of a bigger guide I am afraid. Hence the reason it seems as it needs explaining to do.That's the reason of the source of confussions. Still thanks for sharing your toughs

edited 20th Apr '11 11:30:36 AM by FallenLegend

Make your hearth shine through the darkest night; let it transform hate into kindness, evil into justice, and loneliness into love.

Okay, I see.

Characterization doesn't mean "a character must always act this one way"— it means "a character will generally act this way, unless there are other factors influencing the decision."

The argument that "real people do unexpected things all the time" is a little tricky in fiction. Firstly, writers can't rely on arguments like that, for the same reason they can't rely on coincidences. Coincidences happen all the time in real life, but they should be avoided in fiction because they feel cheap. The same goes for sudden changes in characterization. You wouldn't have a devout Catholic girl randomly jump into bed with a stranger to start a pregnancy plot, because it doesn't make sense. You have to add in other justification for it to make sense— she was drunk, she has repressed sexual urges, she was under mind control, etc.

Secondly, real people in real life do sometimes do things that go against their personalities, but even real life people have things they won't ever do unless it's justified. For example, I tend to be a person who doesn't like bars— I would never go to a bar just for fun. However, I have gone to bars when friends asked or a band I liked was playing. That's because those, to me, are reasonable justification— I generally don't do this thing, but some factor was different that made me go. However, those same justifications wouldn't be enough to make me go into a strip club. I'd need another, bigger justification to go in there; I would never, never go into a strip club "just because." Someone else might, I wouldn't.

As for the original question, Freezair, I think you've given your character plenty of justification to go against her established characterization. Her extreme doormat tendencies are the default— she wouldn't spy on the guy if she were on her own. But her friend is there to urge her along, which is enough justification to make her want to go. Add to that the fact he's already spied on the guy without her, and that's even more justification— she now knows it's safe to go out, and she's more curious about the guy because of what her friend has to say. That's a good enough justification to me, so long as you mention that she's still both hesitant and tempted. It's part of her character development— she's not at the point where she'd do all these things herself, but she's learned to defy her default status.

Just as an aside, if she doesn't go out with her friend the second time, she won't be a very interesting character. You have to have her go— she's already said no once, doing the same scene twice is pretty useless. A character dragging their feet is one thing, a character dragging the plot is another.

Thanks for the all fish!

@nrj: My apologies if I hit a nerve, but it was only a joke, my good Troper. Coming up with silly nicknames is just something I do. I picked it up a long time ago. Heck, people call me Freezepop all the time, or Coldbreeze or whathaveyou. It was merely some silly wordplay.

@Ronka: I like the way you think. I think you're generally right, especially about having to be careful with unpredictability. But I think, rexamining it, her best friend is her motivation—sure, she's terrified of her parents, but she also wants to be a good friend to him, and is willing to follow him so long as she can twist it in her head so that she's doing something good for her parents. Which will do, for now, but I plan to have her slowly realize her independence as things go on.

"Proto-Indo-European makes the damnedest words related. It's great. It's the Kevin Bacon of etymology." ~Madrugada

Creativity in justification is a useful tool for such a character, yes!

A brighter future for a darker age.

I'd say character development isn't about establishing certain actions they will or won't do, but about establishing certain underlying traits that combine to determine how they'll act. For example, if you establish someone as highly intelligent but very emotional, then you can alternate between them doing smart things and stupid things based on the intensity of emotion they're feeling at the time. (Eg maybe when asked to do a hostage negotiation to save random innocent bystander A, they agree to some of the villain's demands because they're not too unreasonable, but when negotiating for the villain to release their Love Interest, they yell that they wouldn't be willing to buy the villain an ice cream unless he was allergic to lactose.)

So, if you have an Extreme Doormat, maybe she'd never sneak out on her own volition, but if someone pressures her enough, she'll do it because she can't say no to him.

If I'm asking for advice on a story idea, don't tell me it can't be done.

What I'd consider to be character motivation and development for an extreme doormat is the things they won't do, and why.