"Characterization" and perception

[Evan Kubota]

Just to be clear, mine was not about me, but about the character. This isn't the psychiatrist's couch, yet ;)

I don't know that I could be more specific. The character does not just have the generalized 'fear of death' - he's literally afraid of the actual act of dying and what it will mean, and he's in a situation where it's a potential reality at any moment. This shapes his actions more than anything else in the narrative, actually.

"Again, I think you could go deeper here. Does your character have the capacity to love? Are they trustworthy? Are they loyal to something explicit?"

To love? Not sure. Trustworthy? Yes, definitely. Explicit loyalty? No.

"Also, this is an odd thing for someone to admire: recklessness? This speaks volumes to his character if he admires recklessness, but just make sure this is *true*."

Recklessness is not necessarily the best term, but more an ability to subsume his fears and doubts to concerted action. Think of Hamlet and his neverending soliloquies. I get the impression that he wanted to become a 'man of action' but thought and action couldn't coexist.

"Okay, so the guy is a rebel. How and why does it get him into trouble?"

Not an active 'rebel' but someone who you could imagine during WWII as a conscientious objector. He's not suited to military discipline, in other words, and is different from most other Japanese at the time.

[npcoombs]

...I think 1-6 of confessions should come next...all for character mapping purposes of course

[comradejones]

he's literally afraid of the actual act of dying and what it will mean, and he's in a situation where it's a potential reality at any moment

'I'm not afraid of dying; I just don't want to be there when it happens.' - Woody Allen

[steve hyde]

...well the point here is to put your characters on the psychiatrist's couch before you send them off to live through the fuckery of life in the world under difficult circumstances. (in other words - your movie)

Leaving the "gurus" behind for a moment, lets just consider the work of a true innovator and master of literary art: James Joyce. Joyce spent decades on the characterization of his protagonist Stephen Dedalus. Why is Joyce's character so compelling? How is he compelling? I think the answers to these how and why questions can be discussed using a theory of "psychological truth". Joyce goes deep into his own psyche and unearths his fears, his desires, his needs, his wants, his trouble traits and so on. Joyce uses his own perception of truth as a compass to guide him through his own first-person perspectives on his own life. Joyce makes a character study of himself, but obviously character studies can be made of anyone that a writer knows closely.

...If you really want to be bold. Take those character map questions to someone you know really well and ask them to map you!! I did this with my girlfriend and it was quite an experience. We actually mapped each other....(yes we are still together). It was quite therapeutic.

There is a reason character-driven films have the most power in the cinematic arts, but that power is only as powerful as the characterizations. Therefore I think the bulk of the work for writers is writing powerful characterizations. Once you have your characters you can send them to World War Two, fourteenth century Florence or to a roller skating party to pick up chicks or whatever. The important thing, it seems to me, is to *know* how they will react in a given context based on their fears, desires, needs and wants.

Okay here is another suggestion: Make a character map of the characters in one of your favoirte films. This is also a great exercise.

Steve