fchan

discussion

Character Analysis

Pages:1

1 Report	at 15 Jun 2008: 16:07 I'm a conceptual artist and I believe I've come up with a good do-it-yourself in-depth character analysis that can decide whether or not your character is worthy of being called a "main character". (This analysis could also be applied to several different things, such as plot, storyline, w/e.) It goes something like: 1) Find the fundamental values of the character in questioning (i.e. my character is an exceptionally good musician, my character is especially handsome, etc.) 2) Take one of those values away. 3) Ask yourself if that character is still valid or of any use to you. 4) Repeat. I believe a decent main character can survive several cycles without so much as a flinch. What does /dis/ think?
2 Report	at 15 Jun 2008: 16:19 Sounds more like a litmus test for Mary Sue to me.
3 Report	at 15 Jun 2008: 17:34 >>1 I agree with 2, as your test leaves out a great deal of very average - or even deplorably valueless in a traditional sense - characters that have been used to great effect as lead roles in literature since forever. The only value the main character needs is that it's the main character - it's the person who's there to convey the story, whether telling it, making it, or merely observing it. I was going to add that a unique point of view for the MC is necessary, but even very dull, predictable MC's have been the vehicle for telling great stories, so really the only requirement for the MC is that they _are_ the MC.
4 Report	Trickster at 15 Jun 2008: 23:18 Upon some late night searching, I found a "Mary Sue" test that might be more helpful than the method you've come up with. http://www.springhole.net/quizzes/marysue.htm Worked for me.
5 Report	at 16 Jun 2008: 00:49 >>4 I dunno. Though I commend them for making that, pretty much every main fantasy/SF character who's focal to the work (IE, Batman, the Doctor, Paul Atreides, etc.) is a Sue by its logic. Hell, even the main characters of The Godfather and The Shawshank Redemption probably qualify. :P
6 Report	at 16 Jun 2008: 01:24 >>4 That test, while relatively accurate, is also 400 million times more strict than it needs to be. Really, the only way to get a relatively good score on it is if you have either simply the most plain character in history, or if you have a character with nothing but negative traits. And before you go apeshit on me, accusing me of simply just having crappy characters, I took this test, taking myself into account as the character, and got an interestingly high score. I got 24, which apparently not good, or some crazy thing. So according to this thing, I have some definite Mary-Sue like tendencies. Honestly, the test isn't bad, but the standard is set way higher than what it should be. Honestly, In my honest opinion, if you have anything lower than 35, you shouldn't really worry about it at all. 36 and up you should probably worry. You'd have to have seriously the most boring character ever to get anything under 10, which is supposedly where you want to be (complete bull, in my opinion).
7 Report	Draconis Khaan at 16 Jun 2008: 06:16 >>4 To save people the time, I'll sum it up: "Is your character in any way unique, competent, interesting, and/or not possessing of a train wreck of a face? ZOMG SUE!!1" People make way too big a deal out of the whole "Mary Sue" thing. It's generally not the character that's the problem -- it's the skill of the writer (or the lack thereof).
8 Report	Bizzle at 16 Jun 2008: 10:59 >>4 That system works relatively well, I've found. The best thing about it, I think, is that it encourages those taking the test to remove or change certain character traits, which I've found makes for a useful guide. Often, those qualities, which appear fine to the writer's eye, appear trite or even silly to a reader. Surprisingly, characters actually tend to become more interesting and identifiable as their Sue-ish qualities are removed. They become less archetypal and more reliant upon the personality that the writer imbues them with rather than flashy gimmicks. That said, you can cut too deeply. Fiction requires some flare to be fun. As long as a certain degree of immersion is possible, the story should be fine. >>5 Characters in films play differently than those in novels or other written formats. If you had read a novelized version of Star Wars before you saw the film, you would probably have thought that it was a silly story with unbelievable characters. Luke Skywalker, Riddick, James T. Kirk, The Bride, Indiana Jones, and all the rest play much better on the screen than they would on paper. Although Bond is an exception. By the way, I liked the book Dune, but Paul Atreides did come off as being a bit over the top. He wasn't nearly as bad as his kids in the later books, though. Space Marines don't get that much plot armour!
9 Add Reply	Name Sage? - = First Page - Last 40 - Entire Thread

Powered by: Shiichan Version 3956
The contents of this page are asserted to be in the public domain by the posters.
The administrators claim no responsibility for thread content.
Manage