Question about creating characters vs. plot.

[harmonica44]

I was reading The Anatomy of Story by John Truby, and he wrote that after you have come up with your premise, you are suppose to create characters to fit that premise. Afterwords, you are to pick the character that is the most interesting, and make that your protagonist.

However, I find it rather difficult to create characters based on having come up with the premise only. It seems to me, that I would have to create a lot more of the plot, before I knew which characters I needed to fill that plot. I would also have to create the ending first, so I know what characters are required to build towards that certain ending.

So I am wondering what you think of to creating characters, after coming up with the premise only, and not the climax and ending you want to build into yet.

For example, in one script I wrote, after I was finished almost the whole first draft and finished with a lot of the plot, I needed to figure out how the protagonist would locate the villain in certain situation. I then came up with a the method of him blackmailing a computer hacker to hack into the villains bank records and set up a whole plan to lure him out.

However, I was not able to come up with the hacker character, until after I had already thought of most of the plot. Before then, I had no reason to come up with the hacker character based on the initial premise alone.

So I am wondering how do you create characters after coming up with the premise only, and how do you decide which of those characters is the most interesting to make the protagonist, since you want to make all your characters as interesting as you can, and it's all relative to the viewer?

 

[Sweetie]

the mentally challenged people are not the hero

umm.... No Sweetie.... Bad Sweetie.... don't bite.

 

[FantasySciFi]

Well in my story, the mentally challenged people are not the hero. The hero is a detective, who is investigating the case, trying to anticipate their next moves, and most of the story is told from his perspective. When I saw most of the story, in my structure of scenes, there are only four scenes without him in, so most of it, like "Seven", for example is told from the hero's point of view. If I should change the premise line to include him then I guess the premise line should go something like "A detective pursues a group of mentally challenged men, who are on the road to get revenge on their persecutors", or something like that?

Who is the hero in "Se7en"? Morgan Freeman? Brad Pitt? Kevin Spacey? Freeman is a narrator or "choir". Both Pitt and Spacey try to claim the moral high ground in their actions. "Seven" is not a Hero's Journey but a Morality Play. Freeman serves as Fincher's Dante, taking the viewer on a walking tour of Hell for sinners. The same is true for "The Abominable Dr. Phibes", "Saw", etc. where misdeeds are repaid with worse deeds. In the morality play, the survivor bears witness to remaining on a straight and narrow moral course dictated by God or being visited by Death.

Not every film has a hero. The 'protagonist' is the person we follow and feel most strongly about, the main character. Sometimes the protagonist is an anti-hero or simply the person of interest (as One Eye of "Valhalla Rising" or Hannibal Lector or Dracula). I don't expect that makes a lot of sense but is nonetheless true. While the Hero's Journey has become a staple of modern Hollywood screenwriting, it is not the only story type. Really. It is, however, the easiest to teach.

It sounds like your current premise is: "In pursuing criminals, the pursuer becomes the victim." You've chosen "mentally challenged men" to be the criminals and "the detective" to be the pursuer/victim. So

In pursuing 'mentally challenged men', the 'detective' becomes the victim (persecuted by society).

However, the book also says that out of all the characters you have created for your plot, to choose the character who is the most interesting to be the hero, even if it means re-structuring the plot to fit that character, if he wasn't the hero in the first place. Because of that, I have been having second thoughts on who the hero should be, as perhaps the detective is just not as interesting as the villains, and he can be a bit run-of-the-mill movie detective, at times.

The person of principle interest is the protagonist. Often the hero but not always. The antagonist is the person working against the protagonist. In most cases that is the villain but not always. In heist movies, we follow the thieves. They are not the "good guys" or "classic heroes" but they are the main characters (protagonists). Working against them are the police (antagonists).

Premise #1: In pursuing 'mentally challenged men', the 'detective' becomes the victim (persecuted by society).

Premise #2: A group of 'mentally challenged men' who have been persecuted, seek revenge in an attempt to change society.

In premise 1, the focus/protagonist is the detective. In premise 2, the focus/protagonists are the mentally challenged men. Picking the more interesting one is all Truby suggests. And in doing so, you alter your story (set of plots).

Okay thanks. I misunderstood then. He means that the hero has to hurt another person at the beginning of the story, but it doesn't necessarily have to be an immoral act or anything.
...
page 41 "The hero must overcome a moral flaw and learn how to act properly towards other people. A character with a moral need is always hurting other's in some way (his moral weakness), at the beginning of the story."

page 42, it reads "The simple rule of thumb: to have a moral need, the character must be hurting at least one other person at the beginning of the story."

So when he says that the character must hurt another character in the beginning of the story, what did I misunderstand?

What are moral flaws? Going back to "Se7en": sloth, gluttony, lust, greed, envy, wrath, pride. So a character can be late to meet someone (sloth), can overindulge (gluttony), make advances (lust), be cheap or stick someone with the bill (greed), be jealous (envy), be aggressive/yell at them (wrath) or gloat about one's superiority or insult them (pride). These 'hurt' the other person when directed at them. They reflect 'moral needs' that ideally over the course of the movie the protagonist learns to address and manifests the opposite (the seven virtues: diligence, temperance, chastity, liberality, kindness, patience, humility). However, they're are other ways to develop the character as well. This is Truby's recommendation.

Fear, Dislike, Submissiveness are also personality traits that can change over time. Fear is an emotion, not a moral flaw. Many stories are about the hero at first afraid but over the course becomes brave. The girl dislikes the man but comes to love him. The worker begins submissive but learns to become assertive. Character development is about realizing and confronting a weakness and transforming it into a strength.

umm.... No Sweetie.... Bad Sweetie.... don't bite.

Good Sweetie!

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. I used the term hero since that's what Truby says is the main character that the audience will connect with and follow throughout the story. So I used it describe the main character, from his terminology.

In Seven when I talked about the hero, I assume we were talking about Mills, since mad_hatter mentioned Mills as example of a character flaw. If he is not the hero, I meant him. Seven never really had a hero really though, accept for maybe the Morgan Freeman character.

John Truby talks about how you should pick the most important character in your story web, and make him/her the main character.

I have two characters I can do that with. One is the detective who I was planning on using originally. His flaw is that he has fear at first, but learns to become better at his job later, too good in fact, and he goes too far. His other flaw could also be that he has a trouble past, similar to the villains and can connect with them on that level, which makes him question his moral position in the case.

The other character, is one of the members of the gang who wants to get out and stop them before they go to far.

I sent a draft out to three people so far. Two just regular moviegoers, and the other with actual writing experience. Two of them said that the first character is not as interesting and is kind of a run-of-the-mill detective you see in lots of movies. Therefore I thought, perhaps I could give him fear, and a similar tragic past, as flaws.

The second character, I was told was much more interesting, with his moral dilemma about betraying him fellow gang members and wanting to do the right thing.

The third person who read it though, disagreed, and said she did probably would not feel as much sympathy for the second character, since he was one of them in the first place.

Does it sound like one character is better than the other, or is it hard to tell at this point, just based on this only?

 

[Sweetie]

John Truby talks about how you should pick the most important character in your story web, and make him/her the main character.

I have two characters I can do that with.

Talk about the cart pulling the horse. You don't write your story and then pick which one is your protagonist.

 

[harmonica44]

Yeah I know what you mean, but the book says to do that, if it turns out that your protagonist is not the most interesting character. Of course I would have to rewrite a lot of the story if I changed the protagonist, based on other people's opinions, of him not being the most engaging to follow.

 

[PhantomScreenwriter]

Why not put aside whatever draft you're on, and start another draft again from scratch, except change the protagonist, and see what kind of draft you end up with afterwards, and then compare it with your other draft.

I'm sure you're aware that some films have had 20+ drafts of a script before it made it to production, and so you're better off just doing a draft, then doing another one with changes, then another one with more changes, and then compare the latest with the others.

You're the one in control of how you write the script so do it as many times in as many different ways as you want. The best draft will eventually surface for you.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. I have already written a few drafts of the original idea, with the original hero. I started on a treatment for making another character, who I have been told is more interesting as the protagonist, cause he has more flaws that are established right away. To be honest, I could go with either at this point. The original has a better plot with more mystery, since the detective knows less and there is more surprises.

But the second one has a more interesting protagonist, and even though he knows a lot more going in, and there is not as much for him to figure out, he is more flawed for the audience, nonetheless.

I think that I need to keep the original but just see if I can give the hero more flaws for now, and should concentrate on making more drafts for that one. Truby keeps saying in the book to come up with the hero before the opponent, and I think that's where I am different. I thought of the opponents and their plan, long before I thought about the hero, and perhaps I made a wrong move there.

As far as making my hero more interesting and giving him more flaws, not every movie has a flawed hero though, that has to hurt someone in the early pages. Clarice Starling in The Silence of the Lambs has no flaws established early on. All we know is that she has some trouble being an FBI trainee cause she is a woman, but I don't know if I really consider that much of a flaw, since being a woman is not a flaw, at least to me. However, she does have a lot of fear, in her job. Not because she's a woman, but just as a general person in law enforcement, which is normal yet possibly a flaw?

In Green Zone, the Matt Damon character is the hero, and he has no flaws that I can see either. He is braver, brighter, and always wants to do the right thing compared to the soldiers he commands, and wants to find the truth, more than anyone else in the movie really, and he never does anything immoral at all. So I have to do write a character like this, where he has no flaws as of yet, but is still interesting to the reader.

 

[Sweetie]

I know what you mean, but the book says to do that

There is ZERO chance you're correct with your understanding of this. It's really hard to tell if you're trolling or intentionally ignoring common sense.

if it turns out that your protagonist is not the most interesting character

If this is the case, you're in trouble. There's a failed TV series called Krod Mundoon and the Flaming sword. The antagonist (most particularly), the sidekicks, hell, even the extras, set design and the props were more interesting than the protagonist. The series didn't get renewed.

Truby keeps saying in the book to come up with the hero before the opponent, and I think that's where I am different.

That's entirely fine. You can do it that way, though you may paint yourself into a corner more often. The antagonist must be designed to match your protagonist. If your method is to design your protagonist perfectly to your antagonist and get used to doing that, come Hollywood, when you cannot design your protagonist (in sequels or book adaptions) you may not be ready for the task at hand.

he never does anything immoral at all

Why do you insist on regressing?

In Green Zone, the Matt Damon character is the hero, and he has no flaws that I can see either.

Awesome example. The movie essentially flopped. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=greenzone.htm While 94mil in box office takings isn't horrible, when you're talking a 100mil budget plus P&A(was that included in the 100mil?) it's a horrific result. The IMDB rating has it at 6.9 so it should be a half decent flick if you're into that genre. You may have stumbled upon one of the reasons it flopped or perhaps you failed to understand the movie. I cannot tell. I never saw it. Until you mentioned it, I had never heard of it.

Next you'll be asking "They did this in Krod Mundoon, so it must be right."

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. I am curious as to how to create a protagonist first, since the antagonist has not been addressed yet. Usually the protagonist's goal is part of the same theme of the antagonist's plan. I find it difficult to come up with the protagonist first and his goal, without even having an antagonist who has a plan that must be stopped yet. If you create the protagonist first, what is he suppose to stop, since the antagonist's plan has not been thought out yet?

For example, in Shaun of the Dead, I find it hard to believe that the writer's would have created Shaun and his goal first, and then thought of the zombies later. They most likely thought of wanting to make a zombie movie first, before creating the protagonist and his goal.

As far as Green Zone flopping, I thought it was due to poor advertising since so many people hadn't heard of it at the time, and even I discovered it by accident.

I was talking my script over with the same people I showed to to before, and they said they I have to not follow John Truby's variables so down to the T, and that if I am going to create a flaw for my protagonist, then I should write it so the flaws come naturally as they go, instead of trying to shoehorn them according to Truby's expectations. Maybe that's true, but at the same time I do not want to ignore structure, and what makes a good story.

 

[Sweetie]

I am curious as to how to create a protagonist first

Curiosity noted. I suggest continuing to read.

writer's would have created Shaun and his goal first

You don't see two steps there? Create Shaun. Create the Goal. KISS. When you create the protagonist, you're not creating everything else at the same time. Build the structure and other pieces of the story, piece by piece.

What will happen is some pieces won't work with other pieces. You have to kill one of your babies and learn to make other babies. (Boy that sounds so wrong, maybe darlings is a better word??).

they said they I have to not follow John Truby's variables so down to the T

That is exactly what you've been told time and again. Why do you disrespect us to much?

I should write it so the flaws come naturally as they go

What's your style of writing? Do you tend to make up your character and let your character tell the story as you go? (I assume this is where you've typically done) What you're doing is backloading all your work instead of front loading. You're picking a method that requires a lot of rewrites and often you'll end up with a story that just doesn't work. That's fine so long as you know that you're going to throw away more than you keep. You'll get better over time. Just get used to always needing to work out what you'll need to do to make your script work afterwards. You'll feel the pain of deleting lots of work that you spend a lot of time writing. If that's your thing, go for it. I cannot and will not help you with this style. There are plenty of writers that use this method. Connect with some of them and ask what works best.

For me, (right now) it's all about structure, character and originality. Working out a plan to make your story strong from the start. It's not a guarantee of success, just a framework. Instead of working for months on a script that was doomed from the start, I can see earlier that a story is doomed to fail so I can begin on the next doomed idea sooner.

 

[mad_hatter]

I am curious as to how to create a protagonist first, since the antagonist has not been addressed yet.

I’d say this is quite easy. Step 1, create protagonist. Step 2, create antagonist to suit. Why do you find that so difficult? If the antagonist was always created first, James Bond’s only enemy would have been Le Chiffre and Batman would only have ever had the Joker to contend with. Not to say you can’t come up with your antagonist first, but it doesn’t have to be that way.

 

[maz]

For example, in Shaun of the Dead, I find it hard to believe that the writer's would have created Shaun and his goal first, and then thought of the zombies later. They most likely thought of wanting to make a zombie movie first, before creating the protagonist and his goal.

I think if you consider the antagonist in Shaun of the Dead to be the zombies, you probably need to watch it again. But in any case, it's a weird movie to choose to illustrate your point, seeing as the whole film is dripping with homage and pastiche of lovingly constructed familiar tropes with a funny script that has nothing to do with zombies, rather than the original plot, characters and dynamics you are presumably trying to create.

 

[PhantomScreenwriter]

With Shaun of the Dead you have other elements at work. For example you have a satirical look at how people in today's society have become so zombie like, that if a zombie outbreak were to occur, some wouldn't even notice, and that is exactly what happens when Shaun goes about his day as per usual and doesn't notice anything different about the people he passes.

As for the character of Shaun, if you take away the zombie element, and just focus on the fact it's about a man who is afraid of change, likes things to be the same, and he has a girlfriend who wants change, wants things to be different - that's something people can relate to, and part of what makes a great character is they must have traits that are relatable.

 

[FantasySciFi]

Okay thanks. I am curious as to how to create a protagonist first, since the antagonist has not been addressed yet. Usually the protagonist's goal is part of the same theme of the antagonist's plan. I find it difficult to come up with the protagonist first and his goal, without even having an antagonist who has a plan that must be stopped yet. If you create the protagonist first, what is he suppose to stop, since the antagonist's plan has not been thought out yet?

You already created your protagonist if you followed the steps of creating your premise. Remember, you had to choose (quoting myself above):

"The person of principle interest is the protagonist. Often the hero but not always. The antagonist is the person working against the protagonist. In most cases that is the villain but not always. In heist movies, we follow the thieves. They are not the "good guys" or "classic heroes" but they are the main characters (protagonists). Working against them are the police (antagonists).

Premise #1: In pursuing 'mentally challenged men', the 'detective' becomes the victim (persecuted by society).

Premise #2: A group of 'mentally challenged men' who have been persecuted, seek revenge in an attempt to change society.

In premise 1, the focus/protagonist is the detective.
In premise 2, the focus/protagonists are the mentally challenged men.

Picking the more interesting one is all Truby suggests. And in doing so, you alter your story (set of plots)."
​

The antagonist is working contrary to the protagonist's intentions in the premise. Short and sweet. If you had done your homework in creating your premise properly, you'd have both your protagonist and antagonist. Sometimes the antagonist is less descript in the premise, but the protagonist is ALWAYS identified. If you don't know who your protagonist is, then you really don't know what your story is about.

I was talking my script over with the same people I showed to to before, and they said they I have to not follow John Truby's variables so down to the T, and that if I am going to create a flaw for my protagonist, then I should write it so the flaws come naturally as they go, instead of trying to shoehorn them according to Truby's expectations. Maybe that's true, but at the same time I do not want to ignore structure, and what makes a good story.

Story and structure go hand-in-hand but are not the same thing. I know I reference architecture a lot but it's the best analogy. Along your street, there are different houses. They're all houses ("stories") but some are bigger than others. Most houses share common features: kitchen, bedroom, bathroom and a living space. Though even these may be blurred in an efficiency ("short"). Still, walking into a home, we expect there is a bathroom, place to sleep and a place to keep/prepare food. Those similarities constitute "structure". We expect a "story" to have certain "structure". However, you might enter the house through the kitchen or garage. There might be stairs, attics and basements. These other elements of the story can have different uses.

The writer, like a real estate agent, basically gives a tour of the house ("storytelling/plot development"). They usually start in one room and proceed sequentially through the house based on its layout ("structure"). On the other hand, the writer could also put the audience in the perspective of an inhabitant. The rooms are traversed in a seemingly random order ("non-linear storytelling") that slowly makes sense. There is an aha! as the audience grows into that role and the big picture story snaps into place.

While much of Truby's advice can be helpful, his approach tends to be aimed at intermediate writers, not beginners. You need to supplement what he says with reading other books as Sweetie has suggested. It will both give you more confidence in his advice and give you alternative ways of thinking about the topics the help his explanations make more sense.

Whoever starts your story and is the principal focus, that character is your protagonist. That person could be 'bad'. However, regardless of whether s/he's good or bad, the character needs to be someone the audience is interested in and wants to follow. One recipe that Truby suggests is making them flawed in a hurtful way. It's one approach. It doesn't make for a 'good' story or even a 'better' story. It helps the writer to give thought to creating a 'more interesting' character.

As much as I think cookie cutter writing is bad, many writing instructors have laid out detailed, fill-in-the-blank templates. Blake Snyder's "Save the Cat" is a good example that is easy to follow. If you fit your story to his template, it will have "good structure". Having a bathroom, kitchen and bedroom doesn't mean you have a "good house" (story). If the timber is rotting, pipes broken, etc. the sale value of the house is nil.

'Good story' means developed characters, believable plots and well developed scenes with dialogue. If all you do is make characters flawed, it's like taking a sledgehammer to that antique cherry dining room table because "distressed furniture" is reportedly more valuable. It's one thing to follow advice that, on the whole, may be sound. But where the art comes in is recognizing when not to follow advice that will damage rather than enhance the project.

 

[WalterB]

.......................
I was talking my script over with the same people I showed to to before, and they said they I have to not follow John Truby's variables so down to the T.....

Just like we say.
Said for years.
And it is sound advice, because you probably use the wrong T anyway.
(Besides that: if you don't follow Truby's advice/method (they are not rules) he won't visit you at night, trample the door with his horse and smash your skull just before you can cry out in fear... Don't worry.)

Stop looking for shortcuts in rules that are set in stone: they don't exist.
There is ALWAYS context in EVERY situation, whether in writing, producing, filming or acting, that forces you to revaluate what you know (or read) before deciding WHAT to DO. This is why it is IMPORTANT to UNDERSTAND the medium and WHY certain 'rules' (guidelines would be a better word) exist.
KNOWING is different from UNDERSTANDING.
UNDERSTANDING makes it possible to improvise. To step into new territory and make your OWN choices.
You THINK you KNOW things.
But apparently you just READ stuff and often not even close enough to grasp the real meaning of what you read.

.............

As far as making my hero more interesting and giving him more flaws, not every movie has a flawed hero though, that has to hurt someone in the early pages. Clarice Starling in The Silence of the Lambs has no flaws established early on. All we know is that she has some trouble being an FBI trainee cause she is a woman, but I don't know if I really consider that much of a flaw, since being a woman is not a flaw, at least to me. However, she does have a lot of fear, in her job. Not because she's a woman, but just as a general person in law enforcement, which is normal yet possibly a flaw?
.....

That's not a flaw, that's a resistence she has to overcome. She needs to work extra hard to proof she is worthy. That may even be an extra motivation to stick with Hannibal. She will show she can do it. It's more or less a mild underdog situation.

 

[Sweetie]

he won't visit you at night, trample the door with his horse and smash your skull just before you can cry out in fear...

I might

 

[WalterB]

I might

Make sure to paint half of your face blue

 

[joejohn123]

harmonica not sure of what concept he wants.
take concept.
next story.
next story line
next charactor

then another stage:

charactor paying respect to story line.
next,story line respect story.
next,story respect concept if necessary.

and script it.

 

[Christopher.Gros]

These responses are a great read.

Sometimes I get ideas for stories just from a phrase, or a particular interesting word. Weird how that works. Everyone writes differently and I believe (in my opinion), there are plenty of great stories that have broken the mold by not following traditional rules. I don't think there is one perfect formula to writing.

 

[joejohn123]

chris quote
"I don't think there is one perfect formula to writing. "

I too agree
(story respect concept only when necessary.)