Writing Workshop - Characterization
Nov. 2nd, 2006 08:47 pm![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
musegaarid.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
mad_prophetsAll right, everyone. Here's the first essay for our writing workshop. Now, I'm not the world's expert on characterization, so if anyone has anything they want to add or that they disagree with, please comment and let us know. This isn't a lecture but a discussion.
Characterization
Overview:
According to Wikipedia, characterization is "the process of creating characters in fiction, often those who are different from and have different beliefs than the author. A writer can assume the point of view of a child, an older person, a member of the opposite gender, someone of another race or culture, or anyone who isn't like them in personality or otherwise." (Italics are my own.)
I cannot emphasize that enough. Your character is not you. He/she/it will not behave in the same ways that you do. This is a good thing. This is a freeing thing. Embrace it. We get the wonderful opportunity to be someone else for a while. Someone who doesn't have our hopes or hang ups. We get to try being different ages, genders, something different and exotic. Why, then, choose to play someone just like you? You can be you anytime.
Still, there are some aspects of your personality that will be evident in your character. You wouldn't be drawn to him/her/it otherwise. There's something there that resonates with you. I, personally, don't work actively to make people's lives miserable, tell them to fuck off, or routinely get in fist fights. Nor do I provide safe haven for people, run a hotel, or know everything. But there's something about Crowley's insecurities and Adam's cheerful optimism that I do draw from my real life. A good character will be a balance: part you and part someone else entirely. Just don't focus on the you part. Let it filter through your subconscious as you write. It took me months to realize that I was unintentionally writing Adam as a vegetarian, which then informed me about his current stance with regards to environmentalism, animal rights, and morality.
If you let them go and don't force them into molds, your characters may surprise you.
Parts of a character:
Again, according to Wikipedia, "Characterization can involve developing a variety of aspects of a character, such as appearance, age, gender, educational level, vocation or occupation, financial status, marital status, social status, hobbies, religious beliefs, ambitions, motivations, etc. According to the Shreklisch Onion Layer Model, the psychological makeup of a fully developed storybook character involves fears, emotions, back-story, issues, beliefs, practices, desires, and intentions. Often these can be shown through the actions and language of the character, rather than by telling the reader directly."
Many amateur writers focus solely on the physical details of their characters. They'll say that he/she/it has a certain color hair and a certain eye color and refer to them incessantly, believing that that's all we need to know about their personality.
Now compare what the professional writers will do. In Good Omens, Gaiman and Pratchett describe Adam as having, "golden curls". They say it once in the beginning and again when he's eleven. Yet every one of us remembers that he's blond. It's not an issue. His eye color is mentioned only in passing near the end of the book:
"Pepper had been sitting staring at her knees. There seemed to be something on her mind. Finally she looked up and stared Adam in the blank gray eyes. 'What bit're you going to have, Adam?' she said."
…and it's so fleeting that I never even noticed it until just now. Oh well. The point is that professional authors might use physical description briefly, to give the reader a picture, but then they spend the rest of the time describing what's going on in the character's mind, describing his actions, feelings, and thoughts, which are far more interesting than a reiteration of his appearance.
Real people have fears, joys, insecurities, hopes, and all kinds of psychological mish-mash. So should your characters. They don't exist in a vacuum, but in a fully fledged universe that affects them. So, why limit yourself to picking hair and eye color or focusing on some other physical trait? It may seem easier at first, but in the long term, you've only ended up with a two dimensional paper doll. Without some kind of internal drive, motivations, or goals based on a rich background that takes into account things like education and religious beliefs, it's going to be increasingly difficult to play your character because you won't know how he/she/it would react in any given situation, you'll only know what he/she/it looks like, and trust me, your readers remember. If not, that's what icons are for.
Direct vs. indirect characterization:
"Characterization can be presented either directly or indirectly. Direct characterization takes place when the author literally tells the audience what a character is like. In indirect characterization, the audience must deduce for themselves what the character is like through the character's thoughts, actions, speech, looks and interaction with other characters."
This is the difference between telling (direct) and showing (indirect). So, for example, this:
"Crowley had dark hair and good cheekbones and he was wearing snakeskin shoes, or at least presumably he was wearing shoes, and he could do really weird things with his tongue. And, whenever he forgot himself, he had a tendency to hiss,"
…is direct characterization. Gaiman and Pratchett are telling us directly what Crowley looks like.
But direct characterization doesn't necessarily have to be physical. Another example could be:
"Many people, meeting Aziraphale for the first time, formed three impressions: that he was English, that he was intelligent, and that he was gayer than a tree full of monkeys on nitrous oxide."
It doesn't tell you anything about what he looks like, but you get a mental image of him anyway, which is reinforced by other instances of direct and indirect characterization throughout the novel.
Now, indirect characterization is what you infer about a character from their behavior. When you read about Crowley terrorizing his houseplants, you can infer things about his personality. It hints at both his demonic nature of wanting/needing to be cruel to living creatures, and his contrariness – how he doesn't quite fit the demonic mold. Of all the potential victims in the world, he chooses to be cruel to living things that aren't commonly believed to be capable of feeling pain. And when we do find out what sorts of wiles he's responsible for: game shows, value added tax, motorways, and cell phone interference, we discover that he's more mischievous than evil. These things are annoyances, certainly, but he isn't actively torturing people, just making their lives a little more harried.
The state of Aziraphale's bookshop is another example of indirect characterization that shows you what the angel is like without having to come right out and say it. Indirect characterization is more subtle, but equally effective in portraying character traits. You should try for a good mix of both in your writing.
Mary Sues:
Wikipedia defines a Mary Sue as, "a pejorative term for a fictional character who is portrayed in an idealized way and lacks noteworthy flaws, or has her flaws unreasonably romanticized."
It goes on to say:
"Characters labeled as a 'Mary Sue' have what are seen as exaggerated and annoying (and sometimes impossible) levels of superiority, especially in comparison to the other characters, to real people in similar situations, or both. (They) are often characterized by their unusual and dramatic traits and experiences, their similarity to their author or their author's ideal person and especially their extreme superiority in comparison to other characters.
"They often have exceptional physical and personal characteristics. They may have unusual and (typically) tragic backgrounds; in fanfiction, they often may be related by blood or strangely contrived family ties to major or significant canon characters. They may have uncommon eye or hair colors or come from a race or species which is uncommon or unknown in the story’s setting. They may have exotic names, pets, or possessions, often with great perceived mystical or magical significance. As children, they often will have experienced abuse or other hardships that seem out of place and may be unlikely in reality, and may also display little evidence in personality or behavior of having been traumatized by these ordeals. In adulthood, they are often portrayed as misunderstood or unfairly persecuted. They are often abandoned as infants or young children, from a famous or infamous family, or related somehow to the author’s favorite character.
"Characters perceived as 'Mary Sues' may have more and better skills than other characters in the story and easily solve problems that stump other characters. Young 'Mary Sues' often have skills or accomplishments that are substantially greater than those of other characters their age and of most people their age in the real world. They are usually presented as more moral than other characters and frequently sacrifice their lives or happiness for the sake of other characters. They often have moral ideas or follow norms that are common in the Western world today but unusual for the setting of the story. They are nearly always exceptionally attractive, with said attractiveness often being described in great detail and typically noticed frequently by the other characters.
"Characters said to be 'Mary Sues' are generally heavily praised by the author and especially other characters. If the character has flaws or limitations, they are either minor and/or endearing, or yet another hardship for the Sue to overcome (e.g. paraplegia, depression, an eating disorder, or a "passionate" temperament)."
Of course, on the other hand, "What constitutes as an 'exceptional' skill, background, appearance or even name is often subjective to the fandom." Meaning that a magic user is common place in the Harry Potter fandom, but could be Sueish in the Pirates of the Caribbean fandom. Adam would almost be a Mary Sue, in that he's extraordinarily attractive, exceptionally nice, and all-powerful. But, I think I can back that up canonically. It's when you have a character – often original, but not always – who is superior beyond the bounds of what they might be expected to be in that particular universe, that you get a Sue.
And, to be fair, "A dislike for overly idealized characters can be considered a cultural preference in modern Western culture. Historically, highly idealized protagonists are pretty much the norm in mythology, saga, epic, fairy-tales and Roman-Breton." Be that as it may, we're not writing mythology or a fairy tale, so please inspect your characters carefully for signs of Sueishness. It's not much fun to play against a character who's always so much more than your own, whether it be positive or negative.
Romance:
A quick word about romance between characters. Don't force it. In role-playing, all bets are off. Because even if characters have been destined for one another, the characters are partially the players and they may or may not have the right chemistry. Yes, if you're playing Romeo and someone else is playing Juliet, the characters should be together, but your Romeo may just not mesh with her Juliet. It happens. You can work around it if the spark's not there, but it's a lot more fun to play with chemistry. So, if Romeo gets along better with Rosaline and everyone's okay with it, let Romeo be with Rosaline, unless it's absolutely necessary. This often has the side effect of bringing in more interesting plot, too, because it makes your characters work a bit harder since you're not taking the easy road. If you want to read about a canonical couple together, read the canon.
One other aspect of romantic situations to keep in mind is that both players should have similar expectations. If one wants graphic smut and the other wants to fade to black, you've got a problem. Or, someone who posts constantly probably shouldn't have their character in a relationship with a character whose player only posts sporadically. That will annoy both parties. Try to find someone with similar habits and ideas to yours for a successful RP romance. If the players' habits are similar you'll find that the oddest character pairings will tend to get along.
Also, I personally prefer not to get involved in graphic RP situations with minors. If that bothers you as well, try to ascertain the other player's age and check it against the age of consent in their home country. In most of the world it's 16, and in America, 18. They may not divulge their age, which is well within their right, but I'd be wary of getting too involved in that instance. Better safe than sorry.
Practical tips:
I'll wrap this up with a few practical tips for improving your characterization.
The first is simple - write with your character more often. The more you write, the better you'll know your character and the better and more consistent their characterization will become.
Second, expand your vocabulary. Instead of writing, "he said", try "he sighed" or "he murmured" or "he chuckled". All of those show more personality, more reaction, than just speaking.
Third, try to use more descriptors and actions in your writing. Let your characters inspect their chipped fingernail polish or pinch the narrow bridge of their nose as they speak. People fidget when they talk, they move, and actions are very telling. Isn't it more interesting to read, "Unable to meet the angel's eyes, he crossed his arms across his chest. 'Sure, I love you,' he muttered," than to read, "'Sure, I love you,' he said. But it was a lie." Try not to go overboard, but a few off-the-cuff adjectives or habitual movements can give us a clearer picture of your character, both physically and mentally.
Also, let us know what your characters are thinking and feeling. They have full inner lives and we'll never get to know them if we only have physical descriptions and dialogue to go on. Tell/show us what's going on in their heads. This is a particularly rich source for characterization.
Finally, have fun with it. Good characterization isn't homework that you have to slog through. Finding out more about your characters can be quite enjoyable and you can learn a lot about yourself in the process. Characterization is the heart of successful role playing and the better you are at defining your characters, the more fun you and all the other players in the game will have.
Final note:
Remember, you can't get drama or comedy from making your characters ridiculous. Real drama that tugs at your heart or real comedy that makes your sides hurt from laughing comes from putting stable characters in ridiculous or serious situations.
Characterization
Overview:
According to Wikipedia, characterization is "the process of creating characters in fiction, often those who are different from and have different beliefs than the author. A writer can assume the point of view of a child, an older person, a member of the opposite gender, someone of another race or culture, or anyone who isn't like them in personality or otherwise." (Italics are my own.)
I cannot emphasize that enough. Your character is not you. He/she/it will not behave in the same ways that you do. This is a good thing. This is a freeing thing. Embrace it. We get the wonderful opportunity to be someone else for a while. Someone who doesn't have our hopes or hang ups. We get to try being different ages, genders, something different and exotic. Why, then, choose to play someone just like you? You can be you anytime.
Still, there are some aspects of your personality that will be evident in your character. You wouldn't be drawn to him/her/it otherwise. There's something there that resonates with you. I, personally, don't work actively to make people's lives miserable, tell them to fuck off, or routinely get in fist fights. Nor do I provide safe haven for people, run a hotel, or know everything. But there's something about Crowley's insecurities and Adam's cheerful optimism that I do draw from my real life. A good character will be a balance: part you and part someone else entirely. Just don't focus on the you part. Let it filter through your subconscious as you write. It took me months to realize that I was unintentionally writing Adam as a vegetarian, which then informed me about his current stance with regards to environmentalism, animal rights, and morality.
If you let them go and don't force them into molds, your characters may surprise you.
Parts of a character:
Again, according to Wikipedia, "Characterization can involve developing a variety of aspects of a character, such as appearance, age, gender, educational level, vocation or occupation, financial status, marital status, social status, hobbies, religious beliefs, ambitions, motivations, etc. According to the Shreklisch Onion Layer Model, the psychological makeup of a fully developed storybook character involves fears, emotions, back-story, issues, beliefs, practices, desires, and intentions. Often these can be shown through the actions and language of the character, rather than by telling the reader directly."
Many amateur writers focus solely on the physical details of their characters. They'll say that he/she/it has a certain color hair and a certain eye color and refer to them incessantly, believing that that's all we need to know about their personality.
Now compare what the professional writers will do. In Good Omens, Gaiman and Pratchett describe Adam as having, "golden curls". They say it once in the beginning and again when he's eleven. Yet every one of us remembers that he's blond. It's not an issue. His eye color is mentioned only in passing near the end of the book:
"Pepper had been sitting staring at her knees. There seemed to be something on her mind. Finally she looked up and stared Adam in the blank gray eyes. 'What bit're you going to have, Adam?' she said."
…and it's so fleeting that I never even noticed it until just now. Oh well. The point is that professional authors might use physical description briefly, to give the reader a picture, but then they spend the rest of the time describing what's going on in the character's mind, describing his actions, feelings, and thoughts, which are far more interesting than a reiteration of his appearance.
Real people have fears, joys, insecurities, hopes, and all kinds of psychological mish-mash. So should your characters. They don't exist in a vacuum, but in a fully fledged universe that affects them. So, why limit yourself to picking hair and eye color or focusing on some other physical trait? It may seem easier at first, but in the long term, you've only ended up with a two dimensional paper doll. Without some kind of internal drive, motivations, or goals based on a rich background that takes into account things like education and religious beliefs, it's going to be increasingly difficult to play your character because you won't know how he/she/it would react in any given situation, you'll only know what he/she/it looks like, and trust me, your readers remember. If not, that's what icons are for.
Direct vs. indirect characterization:
"Characterization can be presented either directly or indirectly. Direct characterization takes place when the author literally tells the audience what a character is like. In indirect characterization, the audience must deduce for themselves what the character is like through the character's thoughts, actions, speech, looks and interaction with other characters."
This is the difference between telling (direct) and showing (indirect). So, for example, this:
"Crowley had dark hair and good cheekbones and he was wearing snakeskin shoes, or at least presumably he was wearing shoes, and he could do really weird things with his tongue. And, whenever he forgot himself, he had a tendency to hiss,"
…is direct characterization. Gaiman and Pratchett are telling us directly what Crowley looks like.
But direct characterization doesn't necessarily have to be physical. Another example could be:
"Many people, meeting Aziraphale for the first time, formed three impressions: that he was English, that he was intelligent, and that he was gayer than a tree full of monkeys on nitrous oxide."
It doesn't tell you anything about what he looks like, but you get a mental image of him anyway, which is reinforced by other instances of direct and indirect characterization throughout the novel.
Now, indirect characterization is what you infer about a character from their behavior. When you read about Crowley terrorizing his houseplants, you can infer things about his personality. It hints at both his demonic nature of wanting/needing to be cruel to living creatures, and his contrariness – how he doesn't quite fit the demonic mold. Of all the potential victims in the world, he chooses to be cruel to living things that aren't commonly believed to be capable of feeling pain. And when we do find out what sorts of wiles he's responsible for: game shows, value added tax, motorways, and cell phone interference, we discover that he's more mischievous than evil. These things are annoyances, certainly, but he isn't actively torturing people, just making their lives a little more harried.
The state of Aziraphale's bookshop is another example of indirect characterization that shows you what the angel is like without having to come right out and say it. Indirect characterization is more subtle, but equally effective in portraying character traits. You should try for a good mix of both in your writing.
Mary Sues:
Wikipedia defines a Mary Sue as, "a pejorative term for a fictional character who is portrayed in an idealized way and lacks noteworthy flaws, or has her flaws unreasonably romanticized."
It goes on to say:
"Characters labeled as a 'Mary Sue' have what are seen as exaggerated and annoying (and sometimes impossible) levels of superiority, especially in comparison to the other characters, to real people in similar situations, or both. (They) are often characterized by their unusual and dramatic traits and experiences, their similarity to their author or their author's ideal person and especially their extreme superiority in comparison to other characters.
"They often have exceptional physical and personal characteristics. They may have unusual and (typically) tragic backgrounds; in fanfiction, they often may be related by blood or strangely contrived family ties to major or significant canon characters. They may have uncommon eye or hair colors or come from a race or species which is uncommon or unknown in the story’s setting. They may have exotic names, pets, or possessions, often with great perceived mystical or magical significance. As children, they often will have experienced abuse or other hardships that seem out of place and may be unlikely in reality, and may also display little evidence in personality or behavior of having been traumatized by these ordeals. In adulthood, they are often portrayed as misunderstood or unfairly persecuted. They are often abandoned as infants or young children, from a famous or infamous family, or related somehow to the author’s favorite character.
"Characters perceived as 'Mary Sues' may have more and better skills than other characters in the story and easily solve problems that stump other characters. Young 'Mary Sues' often have skills or accomplishments that are substantially greater than those of other characters their age and of most people their age in the real world. They are usually presented as more moral than other characters and frequently sacrifice their lives or happiness for the sake of other characters. They often have moral ideas or follow norms that are common in the Western world today but unusual for the setting of the story. They are nearly always exceptionally attractive, with said attractiveness often being described in great detail and typically noticed frequently by the other characters.
"Characters said to be 'Mary Sues' are generally heavily praised by the author and especially other characters. If the character has flaws or limitations, they are either minor and/or endearing, or yet another hardship for the Sue to overcome (e.g. paraplegia, depression, an eating disorder, or a "passionate" temperament)."
Of course, on the other hand, "What constitutes as an 'exceptional' skill, background, appearance or even name is often subjective to the fandom." Meaning that a magic user is common place in the Harry Potter fandom, but could be Sueish in the Pirates of the Caribbean fandom. Adam would almost be a Mary Sue, in that he's extraordinarily attractive, exceptionally nice, and all-powerful. But, I think I can back that up canonically. It's when you have a character – often original, but not always – who is superior beyond the bounds of what they might be expected to be in that particular universe, that you get a Sue.
And, to be fair, "A dislike for overly idealized characters can be considered a cultural preference in modern Western culture. Historically, highly idealized protagonists are pretty much the norm in mythology, saga, epic, fairy-tales and Roman-Breton." Be that as it may, we're not writing mythology or a fairy tale, so please inspect your characters carefully for signs of Sueishness. It's not much fun to play against a character who's always so much more than your own, whether it be positive or negative.
Romance:
A quick word about romance between characters. Don't force it. In role-playing, all bets are off. Because even if characters have been destined for one another, the characters are partially the players and they may or may not have the right chemistry. Yes, if you're playing Romeo and someone else is playing Juliet, the characters should be together, but your Romeo may just not mesh with her Juliet. It happens. You can work around it if the spark's not there, but it's a lot more fun to play with chemistry. So, if Romeo gets along better with Rosaline and everyone's okay with it, let Romeo be with Rosaline, unless it's absolutely necessary. This often has the side effect of bringing in more interesting plot, too, because it makes your characters work a bit harder since you're not taking the easy road. If you want to read about a canonical couple together, read the canon.
One other aspect of romantic situations to keep in mind is that both players should have similar expectations. If one wants graphic smut and the other wants to fade to black, you've got a problem. Or, someone who posts constantly probably shouldn't have their character in a relationship with a character whose player only posts sporadically. That will annoy both parties. Try to find someone with similar habits and ideas to yours for a successful RP romance. If the players' habits are similar you'll find that the oddest character pairings will tend to get along.
Also, I personally prefer not to get involved in graphic RP situations with minors. If that bothers you as well, try to ascertain the other player's age and check it against the age of consent in their home country. In most of the world it's 16, and in America, 18. They may not divulge their age, which is well within their right, but I'd be wary of getting too involved in that instance. Better safe than sorry.
Practical tips:
I'll wrap this up with a few practical tips for improving your characterization.
The first is simple - write with your character more often. The more you write, the better you'll know your character and the better and more consistent their characterization will become.
Second, expand your vocabulary. Instead of writing, "he said", try "he sighed" or "he murmured" or "he chuckled". All of those show more personality, more reaction, than just speaking.
Third, try to use more descriptors and actions in your writing. Let your characters inspect their chipped fingernail polish or pinch the narrow bridge of their nose as they speak. People fidget when they talk, they move, and actions are very telling. Isn't it more interesting to read, "Unable to meet the angel's eyes, he crossed his arms across his chest. 'Sure, I love you,' he muttered," than to read, "'Sure, I love you,' he said. But it was a lie." Try not to go overboard, but a few off-the-cuff adjectives or habitual movements can give us a clearer picture of your character, both physically and mentally.
Also, let us know what your characters are thinking and feeling. They have full inner lives and we'll never get to know them if we only have physical descriptions and dialogue to go on. Tell/show us what's going on in their heads. This is a particularly rich source for characterization.
Finally, have fun with it. Good characterization isn't homework that you have to slog through. Finding out more about your characters can be quite enjoyable and you can learn a lot about yourself in the process. Characterization is the heart of successful role playing and the better you are at defining your characters, the more fun you and all the other players in the game will have.
Final note:
Remember, you can't get drama or comedy from making your characters ridiculous. Real drama that tugs at your heart or real comedy that makes your sides hurt from laughing comes from putting stable characters in ridiculous or serious situations.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-11-03 06:48 am (UTC)As for the vocabulary thing - aside from what I'm learning now, which I daren't use in NO for the sake of being understood - I can recommend opening up a thesaurus site from google and typing in "talk" if one is ever stuck. I know I've been stuck for that many times myself.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-03 05:24 pm (UTC)*coughandtriedtocopyJohnGabsBelPepandabunchofotherpeoplecough*
And yes, online thesauruses (thesauri?) are Aziraphale's gift to us.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-03 04:32 pm (UTC)I'd like to point out that the 'he said/she said' rule varies from person to person, and if used properly, you can go throughout an entire piece with mostly 'he said/she said', with the 'he sighed' or 'he muttered' added in only as an emphasizing point where you want the reader to pause. Used in conjunction with other techniques, it can emphasize a character's blandness, or the monotony of the mood or setting, even if the piece is engaging. This is best done with a Beta, though, as you might end up really just writing boring things if you don't get it looked over. I know I prefer to use one.
Also, I personally prefer not to get involved in graphic RP situations with minors.
*flashes her ID* Am not minor. *wiggles eyebrows suggestively*
Couldn't resist. Tee!
no subject
Date: 2006-11-03 05:20 pm (UTC)*g* Hey, any time you want, doll. I've got an antichrist in a tight spot and a demon on the rebound... ;)
no subject
Date: 2006-11-03 06:43 pm (UTC)"Really?" she asked.
"Huh," he stated.
...gets a bit overbearing. I forgot to mention you can leave off the 'he said/she said' bit off completely in some cases. (I try not to do it for long bits of dialogue, though, since the reader can lose focus on who is saying what.)
I find these interesting, because I'm curious to see how my techniques and approaches differ from others'.
I'm sure I have a demon that would like to be the tight spot that antichrist is in. And Bel is rather fond of your demonic rebound phase. Maybe I could convince his better half it would be a good idea. You know. For 'charity'. :D
no subject
Date: 2006-11-03 07:01 pm (UTC)I'm very much looking forward to the next one, whoever wants to post it. I hear John is nearly done with hers... But we all have different styles and to see them explained will be pretty interesting, I think.
*laughs* Let's let them get through their mutual voyeuristic wanking first. ;) And that would be an endlessly amusing conversation. "Gabriel, it would be an act of mercy, kindness, and charity."
no subject
Date: 2006-11-03 08:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-03 09:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-04 03:11 am (UTC)Oh and sorry about not getting back to you about the dialogue bit... have been busy, and predict that I'll be busy till the end of the month, so I won't be able to start work on that till then. Sorry!
no subject
Date: 2006-11-04 07:25 am (UTC)And no worries. We've got plenty of time to do this. Do what you need to.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-04 08:14 am (UTC)I'm not sure I completely agree with that. Yes, there are aspects of my personality in Loki, but those are the ones I'm worried about. They are things I've added to him, not things that were already there and I suspect that he'd be better without them.
I think what attracted me to Loki is that he's in many ways the opposite of myself which is fun to play, but also difficult because he should get himself into situations I have no experience with and just don't know how to write.
So I think choosing a character that's a lot like me would have been a wiser choice, but I don't feel any attraction to the thought of playing one.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-05 06:29 pm (UTC)I do sincerely understand taking a dissimilar character, though. That's initially why I chose Crowley in the first place. It's very freeing to say things that I would never in real life say. But as for no experience in the situations he gets in, I expect you'd have the same problem even if you had a character just like yourself. Because they're in a hotel full of supernatural beings. That's not something that's ever happened to any of us, so we just have to rely on our imaginations. And the more situations you get Loki into, the more you'll find out about him. Don't worry if he's consistent at first, just get him doing lots of different kinds of things and then you'll find the thread you can return to in the future that is the core of him.
I think you're doing a good job so far, but I would like to see him interact with more people, if you were so inclined. He and Luna might be an interesting interaction...
no subject
Date: 2006-11-05 07:24 pm (UTC)Well yes, but I was actually thinking of my bar scene with Shadow when I wrote that. Would you believe I've been in a bar exactly one time in my life? I don't like alcohol, you see ... I'm feeling hopelessly lost in an environment that Loki would be completely at home in.
I interact with anyone who'll give me the chance. (And Loki did meet Luna once while feeding Horus.) Right now's a bad time, because he's hiding after his falling out with John (which is how Loki reacts to arguments according to the Edda). I could probably come up with something like the library visit for Metatron, if somebody told me they'd like to interact.
(What happened to the challenge where you paired up characters who'd never interacted before by the way? Any chance we could do that again?)
no subject
Date: 2006-11-06 06:36 am (UTC)And I know you do. I wasn't suggesting otherwise. And it does seem like a tough time for him right now. Is there anyone you'd particularly like to play with?
(Oh, that was John's baby. We can ask her about it. It was a cool idea, even though the people I was paired with didn't want to play. :p)
no subject
Date: 2006-11-06 05:56 pm (UTC)Next plan once he stops sulking is for Loki to end up in the hospital wing where he'll get to interact with Ana and hopefully Gabby. (And anybody else who wants to stop by?)
(Well, obviously terribly dangerous Adam and mean, evil Crowley were too scary for them. At least that's what Loki thinks. ... Just thought it might be fun. If nobody else wants to play, though ...)
Sorry, just butting in as is my wont.
Date: 2006-11-23 11:25 pm (UTC)I think my biggest probelm is fretting about OOCness. Bast doesn't get a huge part in AG, so there's alot I have to make up as I go along. I fret too much, really. Should be unhealthy.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-24 05:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-24 04:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-05 07:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-06 06:31 am (UTC)And yeah, you don't need online references. This isn't a school paper or anything. We'll trust that you're not just making stuff up. ;)