| HOW ACCURATE, AUTHENTIC AND CONSISTENT ARE YOUR CHARACTERS? One of the biggest weaknesses in new and inexperienced writers is the consistent development of their characters. Because the emphasis on writing is usually with the plot, interaction of  characters, and dialogue, the writer often forgets to maintain a consistent thread of behavioral traits for each character in the story. Writers also tend to forget that character traits exist in clusters within all people, and those clusters tend to be consistent in any and all given situations.
When a writer violates that consistency, the reader is annoyed and may become disinterested in the character altogether, and eventually in the writing itself.
Understanding these behavioral traits allows a writer to make the characters more believable and consistent with normal and natural behavior. This, in turn, causes the reader to enjoy the characters more and identify with them in their adventure, loves, disappointments, successes and failures. It is especiallly importamt when creating a character in your story that is of an occupation, culture, or nationality of which you have little or no personal knowledge.
This is one of the reasons that long-time character association, such as in a series like Star Trek or Star Wars, or Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan, have become beloved characters--because  we have grown to know them and their idiosyncracies that remain constant, book after book and movie after movie.
And in recent years, we have seen this consistent behavior show up in stories, especially movies, where the interaction over time is assumed. That is, the characters have a long history that we pick up on in the middle of the experiences, but identify with them more quickly because they remain in that pre-molded character. A good example is Nicholas Cage and Justin Bartha in National Tresure, and Matthew McConaughey and Steve Zahn in Sahara. In both cases, the characters become known quickly and consistently because the writer relied on past experiences to set the stage of the characterization.
Four major behavioral traits are listed, each compiled separately with extensive examples, traits, and likenesses to known characters in movies and stories for ease of identification. The best way to write is to pick a behavioral style for your characters based on your storyline and interest, then see how that character would react in different situations based upon behavioral patterns indicative of that character. A BRIEF LOOK AT FOUR MAIN BEHAVIORAL CHARACTERISTICS  Warm and Friendly People
Warm and friendly people are amiable by nature and have easily identifiable qualifies. They are easy to get along with, have a loving and kind disposition, enjoy relaxed relationships, will not directly create conflict, and are happiest and the most effective when they are not overly challenged. They prefer to be around people who are also easy going and friendly and who do not challenge them on issues that are important to them. They typically talk softly and walk and move slowly in an unhurried manner.
Examples: Tom Hanks in Sleepless in Seattle. Kevin Kline in Dave, Demi Moore in Ghost, Melanie Griffth in Shining Through, Nicholas Cage in It Could Happen to You, Sam Neil in Hunt for Red October
Best Male Characterization Example: John Travolta in Phenomenon, Tom Hanks in You've Got Mail
Best Female Characterization Example: Jane Fonda in 9 to 5, Kathleen Turner, Romancing the Stone
 Excitable and Enthusiastic People
Excitable and Enthusiastic people are expressive by nature and have overpowering and enjoyable qualities. They are fun to be around, have an outgoing and boistrous disposition, enjoy outward expression in relationships, will initiate conflicts and challenges which they feel they can manipulate, and are happiest when they are the center of attention, or can express themselves openly and enjoyably.
Examples: Tom Cruise in A Few Good Men, Robert Downey Jr. in Chances Are, Harrison Ford in Raiders of the Lost Ark, Goldie Hahn in Bird on a Wire, Barbara Streisand in What's Up Doc? Mel Gibson in What Women Want, Jim Carrey in Liar, Liar, Jack Black in King Kong, Matthew McConaughey in How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days
Best Male Characterization Example: Nick Nolte in I Love Trouble, Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean
Best Female Characterization Example: Meg Ryan in Top Gun
 Serious and Controlling People
Serious and Controlling People are reserved but directive by nature and have identifiably controlling natures. They are difficult to be around at times, are undemonstrative, enjoy being in charge, exact in their dealings, well-planned and organized, will initiate conflicts because they feel certain they are right and that they can win. They are happiest when in charge or when people act upon their suggestions. They are doers and leaders, and get a high degree of things accomplished with effective results.
Examples: Kurt Russell in Stargate, Susan Sarandon in The Client, Arnold Swartzenegger in True Lies, Sigourney Weaver in Dave, Kevin Costner in Bodyguard, Sean Connery in the James Bond movies, Shirley MacLaine in Guarding Tess
Best Male Characterization Examaple: Yul Brenner in The King and I, Mark Wahlberg, The Italian Job
Best Female Characterization Example: Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio in the Abyss, Eva Mendes in Hitch
 Logical and Analyzing People
Logical and Analyzing people are slow-paced analytical thinkers and doers by nature and have easily identifiable anal natures. They are involved primarily in their own work, which is typically technical by nature, have a standoffish attitude, believe thoroughly that data and facts will always outweigh feelings and intuition, will avoid conflict, and are happiest when given sufficient time to accomplish what they feel needs to be done. Not doers or leaders, they develop material for others to use and complete. They excel in areas where their technical, deep-thinking, analytical skills can be used in a calm, slow-paced, relaxed environment.
Examples: Richard Gere in Pretty Woman, Val Kilmer in Batman Forever, Sam Neill in Jurassic Park, Christopher Reeve in Somewhere in Time, Denzil Washington in Pelican Brief, Leonard Nimoy in Star Trek
Best Male Characterization: Leonard Nimoy in Star Trek, Nicholas Cage in Natonal Treasure
Best Female Characterization: Mary McDonell in Sneakers, Penelope Cruz in Sahara
POORLY DEVELOPED RELATIONSHIPS It is important in writing and story development, that characters that bind together, such as in a romantic in a serious romantic involvement, be compatible in some believable fashion. While it is true that oddlly different people marry one another in real life, most readers like to see a relationship develop between the main characters to which they can identify. When this is done, readers both enjoy your characters and the relationship between them, which overall makes for very good reading.On the other hand, when the reader wonders what has drawn two people together where at least one of the characters is not very sumpathetic to the reader, theyo often lose interest in the relationship and find the romance dissatisfying.
Since a lot more people see the same movies than read the same books, we use movie characters to illustrate the point of poor character relationship development. The first is in the movie Kate & Leopold with Hugh Jackman and Meg Ryan. In this movie, Meg Ryan portrays an unsympathetic character, a woman interested only in h er career and with few, if any, redeeming qualities which would draw a man to her. Yet, Hugh Jackman's character, an easy-going, gentlemanly individual, falls madly in love with her in a very short period of time. It was hard for the movie-going audience to identify with this relationship, and had there been another main female character, they would have been on her side in catching Jackman. Otherwise, the story line, premise, and plot were very interesting, almost intriguing, and made for a very good movie yet it did not do well at the box office. Hugh Jackman's very sympathetic character carried the movie and was the saving grace despite the poorly bonded relationship.
Another movie would be Bird on a Wire, with Mel Gibson and Goldie Hahn. The story itself was fast-paced and exciting with interesting relationships, but the one between the two main characters left much to be desired as Goldie Hahn portrayed an unsympathetic character complaining about and resisting Mel Gibson's character with a hard-nosed attitude that made one wonder why he was interested in her, despite their earlier relationship that took place before the story started. In fact, one of Gibson's earlier love interests was far more appealing, more sympathetic and of greater interest than that of Goldie Hahn's character and viewers found themselves more interested in her than the main character. Always keep in mind that the reader wants to identify with your main characters and wants to be drawn into their lives. This occurs best when the characters are interesting, sympathetic and authentically real to the reader, and when the writer illustrates their thoughts and emotions within the story explanation and the dialogue between them. 
Many writers sometimes like to improve their character as the story progresses. The problem with this is, while the writer knows about the change, the reader is left wondering as to why the character changed, what led him or her to make the change. The problem is, if the rationale behind the chagne is not consistent with the behavior of the character and the story line, the reader is mystified and left hanging. Two good examples of change and their rationale behind he changes are shown in the movies:
U-571 with Matthew McConaughey, who, as the main character, is a rather mild-mannered, friendly second in command on a submarine during World War II. He is passed over for his own command because his captain does not feel he is ready to assume command and make the hard decisions. However, after several eventful, life-threatening experiences where McConaughey is thrown into command, he begins to rise to the occasion, finally making the one hard decisions that saves the ship, but causes a young seaman his life. The change occurs over time and the viewer is completely aware of the events that lead up to it, and a sympathetic understanding is achieved. Such a change is both believable and real.
 An opposite example where the character change is not consistent, gradual, or understandable is found in the movie Miss Congeniality with Sandra Bulloch. In this case, the main character is a hard-nosed police woman who holds the Beauty Pageant, which she must infiltrate, in open contempt. Throughout her character is annoyed and sarcastic about the interests of the other contestants, and objects the entire time of being thrown into their midst in the humiliating environment of a Beauty Contest. Yet, at the conclusion of the movie in which her character has shown no compassion or indication of a change of heart, she becomes syrupy and goes around hugging everyone and claiming to want world peace which she had disdained earlier. It makes for a nice ending, but is not based on any authenticity for the character and leaves one annoyed at the change which is not explained in any way.
 In the movie You've Got Mail, with Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan, Tom Hanks' character remains consistent throughout the movie, a warm and friendly person, but appears for a time to be mean and cruel to the main female character. It is an interesting example of a person remaining in character though being seen differently by the viewer through the eyes of Meg Ryan's character. Obviously, when working a character this way, he must remain in character to the viewer or reader, and the difference being seen by the other character is understood in the course of the story.
CLICK HERE TO ORDER THE 4-PART BEHAVIOR CD RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE | HOME | | |
