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?

 

[joejohn123]

The plot might become less preference if you try to keep the made-up character hacker stay unnecessarily.
as you said hacking might not be the only way to get intended details , it's better to put this hacker character as one of the option.by this, the plot of story remains as intended.
If you go on start to provide enough preference for this character , then plot might seen nonsense.

may I ask you something?

I f i did build a con team in real life , i would make money in once and will be living good life after that and for ever and will give up con act.
i would expect the same from respectful team members too.

So, the question is, would you like to be part of that team?
IF you think , i can do con act , how would you rate me in terms of success.

I heard , somewhere in east india , a temple holds 40 billion worth of jewellery.
it still kept inside building not that protected.

What are the possibility of mine becoming successful in achieving that.
if not 40 billion , may be atleast 10 Million (m fro money)

so may be it's not necessary to go and act on that temple itself.
there might be other area where i can achieve.
but again, that temple area is no that secured .i promise.
will you be part of that team.
not a silly question.mind it.

 

[Sweetie]

premise only

What does this mean to John Truby?

Have you read the whole book yet? If not, don't read another word of my post until you've finished the book.

Do you have multiple views on multiple processes? Preferably from multiple authors?

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.

It does depend on what kind of premise you're writing. Some story types only work with particular character types, though the characteristics of that character can vary wildly.

The reason I have you a huge list of books to read is you must find the style that suits you the best. John Truby is a very structured writer, so hearing you take this rigid method from his book... seems rather odd.

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.

It's one method. Try it. See how it works for you.

Hopefully you do it right your way. If you find the character convenient, two-dimentional, lacking of dramatic impact or straight out boring, then you've done the job wrong and you need to find some place where you made the error and either work out how to fix it or find the problem point and start again from there.

Keep on reading and find a method that works best for you and then refine over time.

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?

I don't think you quite understand what he's trying to teach yet, but if you keep at it, you just might have enough pennies drop to make it worthwhile.

That's the joy of writing. That's where your creativeness comes in.... that and experience.

John Truby and many other authors will teach you how to screw up less... They cannot teach you how to be a great writer. That'll come from within. Either you build the writing muscle from inside you or you don't. Writing isn't for everyone. It's hard. Really hard.

Keep reading and practicing until you "Find your writing zen" or until you give up.

 

[PhantomScreenwriter]

I think it's best to just find what process works for you. It could be that this is the way you could approach all your scripts. It could be that you have a different process for each individual script you write. Or there may be another process that will be something you can use for every script.

 

[FantasySciFi]

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.

I think you took that out of context. Premise is not the same as plot. As a simple example, premise ("What if you could go back in time?") vs. plot (the politics of building a time machine or consequences of altering events in the past). Truby suggests that you think of what different characters might do. If a janitor was sent back in time compared to, say, a scientist or historian. You decide which one might be interesting and then begin exploring that.

A scientist or historian is a fairly obvious choice. And lots of films do use them. What sets "Bill & Ted", "Back to the Future", and others apart are the non-obvious choices of who gets sent back and the consequences of their actions. These choices can be fun and original.

"A janitor, while cleaning a physics lab, finds himself thrown back in time to the age of the American Revolution." Now you have a kernel to begin developing your story (a series of plots woven around your premise). Plot also comes from the premise.

PREMISE + CHARACTER = STARTING POINT

What's the premise for your movie? "A guy trying to do the right thing, loses everything." A premise is fairly general. What kind of guys might that apply to? Cops, lawyers, business tycoons, etc. For your film you selected something like "A veteran cop trying to do what's right, gets siderailed by crooks and ends up losing everything." That's the starting point for your story development.

That's it. That's all Truby is suggesting. Why did you make your protagonist a cop instead of a bank executive? Something made it more interesting for you. What if, instead of the cop, you put in 'janitor'? Now, "A janitor working after hours reports suspicious activity. His life goes to hell as evidence mounts implicating him." A janitor doesn't have the resources that a cop has. How he copes would be significantly different. A different story (series of plots) woven around the same premise.

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.

Again, plot is not premise. Some writing instructors say start with your logline. The premise is essentially the logline. I don't work like that but many writers like that approach. I do find it helpful to keep the logline in front of me, to remind me of the the central premise of the script. The premise helps guide your plot development.

Personally, I'm not fond of plugging plot holes like that. It makes the script uneven and contrived. For something that critical, the computer hacker should appear occasionally throughout and not just at a critical moment. He can still save the day but he's an expected minor character. Again, Truby is talking about your major character(s) (protagonists), not every character who appears in the story.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. I know the premise is not the plot. That's what I was trying to say. The premise is not enough to make characters out of. I need to create more plot first, and the climax and ending, that best suits the premise, before I can come up with a main character. Where as Truby seems to suggest to put the main character in the logline first, before coming up with more plot.

But after coming up with my premise line, I haven't even come up with the main character yet. I decided to make him a cop, cause of the climax and ending I wanted.

And yes, after I made up the hacker character, he does appear occasionally and throughout. Not just at a critical moment.

As far Truby saying that after you have created all your characters, that I should make the most interesting character the protagonist, even if it means changing the script, how do I determine who is the most interesting, since I try to make them all as interesting as possible for their roles?

He also says that audiences like a flawed hero, and that in your opening, you should have the hero commit an immoral act against another character. However, with the hero I have chosen so far in my script (unless I should change that), I don't really have a reason for him to commit an immoral act in the beginning. The plot starts out so that he arrives at the first crime scene and starts investigating it. Kind if like in Seven or The Silence of the Lambs or something. He is given an assignment and starts doing it, cause it's his job.

In The Silence of the Lambs, you do not see Clarice Starling commit an immoral act in her opening, so this rule really necessary like Truby says? He says that most stories have the hero have a psychological flaw and that's it, but better stories give the hero an immoral flaw, and he says that if you show him commit an immoral act in the beginning, it's an improvement.

But I feel if I do it, with my character, it may come off as forced. Is it always necessary, or did I structure my script wrong, if I cannot have the main character do such a thing without it coming off as forced?

 

[FantasySciFi]

What's your premise?

I thought I knew but it would be good to hear what premise you're actually using.

 

[harmonica44]

Sorry I should have said the premise before. It's the one I talked about in this thread, but I changed a lot of it around since:

http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=55165

So if I make the main character a cop, investigating the whole crisis, I need to come up with a psychological flaw for him. I was thinking perhaps he can have a background similar to the villains, and that causes him to take the whole case personally and gets him to confront his past. However, there is still no moral flaw for him, and every moral flaw I come up with may come off a bit forced, if he is to commit an immoral act, in the opening.

How did Silence of the Lambs for example, make Clarice a compelling character without having her commit an immoral act against someone in the start. If she did, would that have improved the story?

 

[FantasySciFi]

I searched that thread but didn't see a premise. It has to do with a mental asylum plot and guns. For the benefit of my addled brain, can you state your premise. It should be a simple one line statement.

From that link: "The idea for my script is that people in a home for the mentally challenged, are sick of being confined there, and want to get out, and have their own freedom, out of envy of everyone else. It gets to the point where it sickens a particular group of them (who stick together as a group of friends), and they decide to have some firearms delivered to them and they end up taking the place hostage, making demands"

That's a plot, not a premise. Seems like you have to come up with a premise first.

 

[harmonica44]

Oh okay. I didn't really consider that the plot since it's just an idea, and a lot more happens, story wise, aside from that. I guess as a one line statement, the premise would go something like this: "A group of mentally challenged men who have been persecuted all their lives because of their conditions, set out to commit acts of terrorism, in an attempt to change society".

 

[Sweetie]

He also says that audiences like a flawed hero, and that in your opening, you should have the hero commit an immoral act against another character. However, with the hero I have chosen so far in my script (unless I should change that), I don't really have a reason for him to commit an immoral act in the beginning.

How did Silence of the Lambs for example, make Clarice a compelling character without having her commit an immoral act against someone in the start.

They didn't. You're squarely in the realm of taking 1+1 and getting 59, in other words, you've misunderstood.

You need to make your hero (protagonist) do acts that helps your audience empathize, relate, like or admire your character. You could use this method with your antagonist, but think good, long and hard if you're going to do this with your protagonist.

There are multiple ways that you can get your audience to empathize with your protagonist. I'm not going to spoon feed you as it's obvious you need to continue to read. It's not to say that you cannot have your protagonist do just that. You can, but you're going to have to use other methods to align your audience.

with my character, it may come off as forced. Is it always necessary, or did I structure my script wrong, if I cannot have the main character do such a thing without it coming off as forced?

This can come from poor plot design, poor character design and poor writing among many other issues. One or more of these can be the cause. More often than not, it's poor plot and/or having your character(s) do what is outside what the audience accepts the character would do.

You can use convenience to get your protagonist into problem, but you cannot use coincidence to get your characters out.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. The book says the hero should commit an immoral act, but if it does not have be immoral and it can be empathetic, then that may work better, or less forced for an opening.

I said before that my hero's psychological flaw, was that he could have a condition similar to the villains that would cause him to confront himself and take the whole scenario personally. What if in my opening, the hero is summoned to the terrorism/hostage situation, and the villains get a look at him from the distance. They then look through a laptop of police personnel files and find him, by recognizing him as the same person, in his picture, in the file.

They then call, ask to speak to him in person and in private, and they then ask him if he wants to join them in their quest, since he is 'cut from the same cloth', so to speak? He doesn't have to commit an immoral act right there in the opening, but his flaw is still established to the audience. Would this be a good way to establish his flaw, or does it come off as forced or contrived?

 

[Aspiring Mogul]

Hello, Harmonica,

Most stories focus either on plot or character, and your story will depend on whether you want to focus on the events or on how the actors react to those events.

You seem to gravitate towards the character-oriented story, so you may want to google, "character-oriented story", and you should get the references you need. Once you have the basic information, you should start writing - remember that, in any craft, you must practice, practice, practice.

 

[Sweetie]

The book says the hero should commit an immoral act

Wrong. You're saying that. The book doesn't. Re-read your book.

You've taken one of the ways to create empathy incorrectly where an immoral act is done upon the hero. You do see the difference right? One method has the act done to the hero, your version has the hero doing the immoral act. I also believe the word is unjust.

He doesn't have to commit an immoral act right there in the opening, but his flaw is still established to the audience. Would this be a good way to establish his flaw, or does it come off as forced or contrived?

You're not going to succeed if you misunderstand what you learn and cling to that belief like your life depended on it. If it doesn't make any sense, why are you trying to use it? Some common sense here would be nice.

Whether it comes off as forced, contrived or even trite, it is based on your plot and your characters. It might, it might not. If it is forced or contrived, then it'll come off that way. Is forced really a bad thing? Same for contrived.

Would this be a good way to establish his flaw, or does it come off as forced or contrived?

I doubt it'll be a good way to establish, but not for the reasons you're thinking. I think it'll lack dramatic impact. If you think it'll work, try it. Let us know how it turns out.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. But on page 41 of the book it reads "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."

And on 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?

 

[Sweetie]

"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."

How do you get "you should have the hero commit an immoral act against another character" from that? How does a "moral need" turn into an immoral act on to another character? This is where you're normally getting caught up. You misunderstand, others correct you and you barrel down the road in the wrong direction for months on end.

I interpreted it as such. What did I interpret or understand wrong?

The meaning. While it's fine to put things in your own words, there's a huge difference between a moral act hurting another and an immoral act being done to a character. When you put things in your own words, you need to be careful twisting to the point that you change the meaning. This is what you've done. You need to be more careful. You often make incorrect statements like they're fact, just like you did this time that Truby said you need to have your character to immoral acts to other characters. You do it often.

This is why you also need to rely on common sense. Did this make sense to you?

 

[WalterB]

Sweetie is right.

There are a few things you need to understand:

1) Language. If you can't understand language, every book, every conversation will be blurry at best
2) Let go of your 'rules'. For 2 reasons:
A) They paralyse your brain and turn you in a blind sheep, even if the rules make no sense
B) You make BS rules because you don't really understand language or context


BTW,
The protoganist can hurt a character without being immoral.
I.e, a dad who misses his son's play at school is hurting his son.
Disappointing a loved one is hurting someone.
Ignoring someone's need of help can be hurting.
Having a fight about whatever is hurting.


I wonder:
what do you think of when you say character?
Are you sure you use the right meaning at the right moment?
A character can be just a person in a story. This can be just a profession: a flat character.

A character is also a description of appearance, sex, age, profession, dreams, ideals, preferences and 'conditioned reflexes'* (you could call this a 3D person description: appearance, internal and history are described. This is not a pro way to call it. I just made it up to make the difference more clear.)
(* how does someone interact with people, how does someone react to certain things)

'Coming up with a hacker character'
Did you mean you figured you needed someone who is a hacker and you added this flat character to the plot?
Or did you come up with a 3D person description of someone who is a hacker as well? Since the profession is just one of the 'things' someone is.
(From a yoga or buddhist perspective you can ever argue that a profession is just a label, an identification that is actually not the true self But that is another topic )

 

[mad_hatter]

I agree that common sense should prevail here. I mean, can you think of any movie in your chosen genre where the protagonist commits an "immoral act" in the beginning? You've already questioned your own thinking before, by asking about the character of Clarice in "Silence of the Lambs". Did she commit an immoral act in the beginning of the film? Did her failure to do so somehow cause you to dislike her, or care less for her?

You're really talking about character flaws. Think about Detective Mills in "Seven". He's a good guy. He's passionate. But he works too hard, too long. He allows his emotions to rule over his head. This hurts both his wife and Detective Somerset. He's not committing any immoral acts, but he is morally flawed. To my mind, that's the kind of thing your trying to look for.

 

[FantasySciFi]

Oh okay. I didn't really consider that the plot since it's just an idea, and a lot more happens, story wise, aside from that. I guess as a one line statement, the premise would go something like this: "A group of mentally challenged men who have been persecuted all their lives because of their conditions, set out to commit acts of terrorism, in an attempt to change society".

From Truby's perspective, even that is too detailed. The premise is a high level concept: "People persecuted their entire lives, strike out at those who torment them."

Truby's next step is to have the writer think of whom this premise applies. Who is persecuting whom?

You jumped a step by identifying the who as "mentally challenged men". What he would encourage you to do is step back and think of several examples and then pick one that is intriguing to you.

So "mentally challenged men ... persecuted their entire lives, strike out against their tormenters, (?)"
Who are the tormentors? Again, this can be selected to be expected (care staff) or unexpected (rabbits). The more absurd, the more comical. Though it could be ghosts of past residents. That choice has consequences.

It's okay to jump a step, just understand that Truby's intent is to help you get to that point in an organized way. So you have your working premise:
"A group of mentally challenged men who have been persecuted all their lives because of their conditions, set out to commit acts of terrorism, in an attempt to change society".

Now what? You haven't really identified who or what constitutes mentally challenged group. Who would that be?
A guy struggling with cerebral palsy--wicked smart but trapped in defective body
A guy with Down's who's not that bright but strong (a gentle giant)
A guy struggling with schizophrenia constantly fighting the voices and hallucinations
... Why just men?
A girl who is autistic but which a pronounced ability to count things

Are they interesting? Would you expect them to organize and commit acts of terrorism? Who is this society? Maybe it's the community at large.

Okay thanks. The book says the hero should commit an immoral act, but if it does not have be immoral and it can be empathetic, then that may work better, or less forced for an opening.

I said before that my hero's psychological flaw, was that he could have a condition similar to the villains that would cause him to confront himself and take the whole scenario personally. What if in my opening, the hero is summoned to the terrorism/hostage situation, and the villains get a look at him from the distance. They then look through a laptop of police personnel files and find him, by recognizing him as the same person, in his picture, in the file.

They then call, ask to speak to him in person and in private, and they then ask him if he wants to join them in their quest, since he is 'cut from the same cloth', so to speak? He doesn't have to commit an immoral act right there in the opening, but his flaw is still established to the audience. Would this be a good way to establish his flaw, or does it come off as forced or contrived?

Are we still talking about the same story? From your premise the protagonists are 'the mentally challenged group". They're the heroes. If you've changed the premise, you've changed the story. Where does a 'hero' come in your premise you told me?

You're not at character development because you still haven't decided on your premise. So assuming now that we have a Hero confronted by Villains, what is the premise for this new story? To stay true to your premise, your 'villains' are the protagonists, the 'heroes'. The police officer is just a supporting role.

If you were developing your stated premise, you would introduce your group members in situations where they are abused. Maybe at a doctor's office or facility, two or three of them talk. Maybe the gentle giant protects one of them (cerebral palsy) from a bully. That inspires them to band together. Then they decide to commit a crime. Unfortunately, people get hurt which draws in the police officer (antagonist/supporting). From there events go in different directions.

This makes a fascinating direction to take your INITIAL premise. Where you are is a different premise and story altogether.

 

[harmonica44]

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.

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?

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.