Exaggerated Personality Traits

Hiya, I just recently received criticism that some of my characters may have traits that are way too exaggerated that they're annoying. Yes I know, some people here knows what I'm talking about. The thing is though, I like to still at least exaggerate some interesting or entertaining personality traits to make a character more memorable. So how do I find the middle ground for this?

It would help if you gave us an example of said exaggerated traits, so that we know what you're talking about. (Personally I've semi-followed the CDT discussion thread so I have a vague picture, but even then it's still not enough to help you.)

But anyway, try toning down the exaggeration by a bit, then show us an example of those characters behaving.

I agree with the post above me, but I'd also like to add that a character doesn't need exaggerated traits to be memorable. To avoid blandness, you should make your character unique, not over-the-top.

Sure, a character might seem to have only one or two traits defining the face that they show to the world, like how you and I see our acquaintances and peers.

It's the subtleties in addition to those primary traits that can make a larger-than-life character memorable.

Three words: Big Bang Theory.

Exaggerated personality traits are a main stay of comedy, but have to be toned down a bit for drama.

Flanderization may be a useful trope to consider here, although it doesn't quite apply in this situation.

From my experience, you've exaggerated character traits meant to make a character annoying, but are still trying to play said character as sympathetic.

Answer: make that character not meant to be as sympathetic. Either make him a bad guy, or, you know, the Butt-Monkey. If you don't, the fanfic writers will...

You don't need to exaggerate the trait to make the character memorable; just show the trait acting on the story in a memorable way. Unless these are villains; a villain should have their flaws exaggerated to the point of causing problems.

So let's just say I have a really playful and curious Cloudcuckoolander. At one point, at a cafeteria, they get a bunch of food, drinks etc. Then mixes it in such a weird way, to see what would happen, that it mutates into a giant blob monster that attacks everyone. Would you say that's too exaggerated for one of my main characters?

edited 22nd Sep '11 7:37:35 PM by PsychoFreaX

In a comedy? No. In a serious work with comedy elements? Yes.

Depends on how exaggerated the setting is. If it's an over-the-top comedy, no. If the work is meant to be understated or serious, yes.

edited 22nd Sep '11 7:42:50 PM by tropetown

In a collaborative setting where no single character is supposed to dominate the entire scene, where most of the writers signed up wanting to write conversations, and where there is an explicit ban on combat...

Randomly mixing materials and creating a monster is something that has nothing to do with the character. It was the combination that was weird, not the character who randomly did it. Unless it's some kind of power that weird shit happens around him.

So I'm still waiting for an example.

(And what everyone else said. This can't be taken seriously, so if it's not for a comedy, take it out.)

also depends on the medium. It's less forgivable for novels, but anime can(and does) get away with anything. either way, I don't have an opinion.

It's also more of the fact that his thought process is weird enough for him to be able to create one. Normal people can't just make blob monsters by mixing random food and drinks from the cafeteria. I don't think.

Yeah, but normal people can't do that because it's impossible, not because they are not weird enough. So it's either a power of said character that things like that happen around him or your story takes place in a universe where this is possible. In either case, this event has nothing to do with the character's personality.

Something like that would only be viable in the strangest of comedies. Otherwise, people will say 'WTF was that' instead of 'oh, this guy's personality alone made the shit mutate'. And the little that I've seen of your work has implied that you are not writing comedy.

Er, yeah. The cafeteria example is ludicrously unrealistic and irrational in a non-comedic setting. The only place for that, really, is the realm of comedic absurdism. And not really an example of an exaggerated character trait.

However, in general... When creating a character, it's important to keep in mind that while there's nothing wrong with emphasizing a trait, it's also the parts of their personality below the surface that flesh them out and make them believable and memorable. For character personalities, I find it useful to do a bit of research in the area of psychology. Allport's theory on personality traits is particularly useful with creating characters, as it can help determine just how to organize their personalities and can often serve as a useful reference as to what traits to exaggerate or subdue.

In Allport's theory, there are three main types of traits:

• Cardinal Trait: This is the most dominant personality trait in an individual, and is what people unfamiliar with them will usually recognize and identify them with. For example, people pretty much immediately identify me with my passion for music and art. These stick with an individual for pretty much the duration of their lives, and usually develop in the teen and adult years. This is most likely the "exaggerated trait".

• Central Traits are less pronounced than an individual's cardinal trait, but form the bulk and foundation of a person's personality. These are major characteristics used to further describe a person or predict behavior. Examples of central traits are intelligent, shy, loud, honest, flighty, etc.. Out of all of the types of personality traits people have, most are central traits.

• The final type of traits are Secondary Traits. These are the least pronounced, and usually only seen in very specific situations or certain circumstances. These traits often have to do with an individual's certain preferences or attitude towards these specific events, situations, or things. An example of a secondary trait would be, say, shyness or extreme anxiousness when giving a presentation in an individual who is normally outgoing. Or perhaps an individual has a tendency to become impatient when standing in line. In other words, secondary traits are essentially "quirks".

Now, that's pretty much a skeletal outline, but the hypothetical rabbit hole goes a lot deeper. From there, other psychologists have contributed to the theory, making things even more specific. Because it's still quite broad, I'd recommend looking into things like Cattell’s sixteen key personality factors, Eysenck’s three dimensions of personality, and the "Five-Factor Theory" of personality, to name a few. It also helps to try to figure out why they are the way they are if they have certain uncommon or alarming traits, I.E. extreme emotional blunting or violent sociopathy, be it due to environmental influence or perhaps something more internal.

tl;dr version: Research is your best friend when developing a character and knowing how to emphasize certain traits without overshadowing other key personality facets of said character.

edited 23rd Sep '11 9:07:45 PM by Motree

@Motree: Those are interesting tests. For example, on the Eysenck one, I'm low in all three factors, I'm controlled, and I'm Phlegmatic. That's about right (I'm introverted, I'm emotionally reserved, and I'm rule abiding).

While we're on the topic of personality, I been thinking about ways to think about it while thinking about characters:

• External: The "public" and situational face of a person. How do they act to other people? How do they socialize? How do they express their emotions? How open are they to things?
• Internal: The "real" and deeper core of the person. How do they perceive the world? How do they deal with sensations? How different are their internal selves to their external selves?
• Primal: The true soul of the person, both known and unknown. Basically: How do they deal with a life-and-death situation? What are they inside? What do they want?
• Quirks: These are the subconscious traits of the person, both little and defining (Exaggerated). What is their body language? Their favorites? Their preferences?

What do you think? It's a rough I typed up on the spot, but that's the basic concept.

Seems rather unbalanced.

If you really want to define your character's personality traits, a site I visited quite a few times (which, by the way, has brilliant writing tips) has the seed-concept idea. This is basically building your character around one or two words (You might be able to go up to three, but one or two will usually suffice. Any more, and your character probably isn't very well-defined in your mind.) and having their actions and other personality traits stem from it. For example, one of my characters was built around the word "passionate": even though he has many other character traits, they all have something to do with his passionate nature, which often leads him into trouble.

My point is, if you're having trouble with your characters' personalities, try to see if you can boil down their essential traits to one or two words; it'll make their personalities seem that much more natural, even if they end up a little exaggerated.

Here is a link to the site, if anyone's interested.

edited 24th Sep '11 4:45:06 PM by tropetown

I just scanned through the romance article. Hopefully, it'll be helpful for Bryan/Amy.

About the keyword for a character: Personally, I think about what the character wants. What is their life motivation? What do they want—no—need to get out of life, or they would die from despair?

(From typing this post, I found that the motivations are two-parted: What do they want for themselves, and what do they want for others?)

For Bryan, it's "be useful by guiding people". He wants to nudge people the right way. He sees slackers and attitude-types, along with negative traits in people, and he wants to change them. When he is unable to do this, he feels useless. This is why he latches onto Finn, because Bryan feels that he needs to open Finn up, grab him out of his shell, and have Finn live life and make his mark. And Bryan wants to see his mark on other people.

On the other hand, Finn is a little more complex. He wants to "be free and spread it" and "carry out his duty". All his life, he had been trapped by the discipline with Oxford. He starts to feel trapped, internally slipping into despair yet unable to express this. The student exchange program is his saving grace. He embraces it. And ends up letting Bryan guiding him to freedom, the freedom to express himself, and free Bryan to be useful at the same time. However, he also wants to extend this to other people. He thinks his life motivation is "to carry out his duty" (which is part of the "Internal" element in my rough above), but by carrying out his duty, he's freeing people from Manifestations, from their literal emotions.

Therefore, Bryan and Finn has the same core motivation: "Help people." Bryan guides them, Finn frees them. This what makes them a duo, and "lovers" in the "agape" sense.

Interesting. I found that, when I gave two people the same basic keyword, their experiences were what shaped their distinct personalities. It's the buildup of reactions and lessons learned from being placed in different situations that make each character unique, even if their basic trait is the same.

Yeah, the romance article was brilliant; the seed-concept idea made it really easy to make a believable romance between characters. It also, unwittingly, created a bit of Foe Yay between two characters that I gave the same basic concept. I won't go anywhere with it, since that would be major Character Derailment, but I was surprised to see the subtext when I wrote their scenes together.

edited 24th Sep '11 5:41:41 PM by tropetown

My approach to characters is the same as tropetown's, right up to the one or two words thing. However, my words are never really helpful. When I start to construct a character, I'll sometimes have a trait (flaky), a look (gray hair and aviator glasses), a name, or—depending how far along I am—their role (the psychologist that will appear in chapters 3, 7, and 9). I will either start building up from there, or put them against some established characters to find out their personality, speaking patterns, etc. If I do it the second way, I have to work backwards to flesh them out more before I can include them in the story proper.

I'm terrible with starting off with the "wants." Not because I don't know them, but because—often times—it's not explicit, plot relevant, or they won't get it. Especially minor characters.

The whole "life motivation" is mostly for protagonist or core characters, which are (supposed to be) the deepest characters.

But try keeping in mind their objectives in the narrative. What is their goal? It could be something simple (deliver this message to character X, get a box of chocolates) to a string of complex objectives that shift and change. But keeping in mind what the character is striving for helps with their personality, since how their personality drives them to reaching their goals is key.