Lois & Clark Forums Forums Fan Fiction Fanfic Related Characterization

Just a random question that might get some discussion going:

How do you get to know/create your characters when writing about them?

This can apply to both original characters or canon ones because everyone has their own spin on who Lois is or who Clark is.

For me, physicality is a big clue. Not only how a character looks, but how they inhabit their body. How they move across the room, how they would sit, etc.

Also, I tend to ask myself really random questions about the character.

If they were forced to get a tattoo, what would it be of? What is the one thing you should never say to them, under any circumstances? And how would they react if you said that to them?

Anyone else want to share?

Those are all good questions. The part about the character reacting to the one thing which should not be said to him/her is very important. (The phrasing reminds me of Rumpole of the Bailey, whose wife is often referred to as "She Who Must Be Obeyed" for reasons I do not understand.)

I was communicating with another FOLC recently who held the opinion that Perry's Elvis obsession wasn't character defining; that is, whether Perry loved Elvis or not in any story had no bearing on how this person viewed that character. I think that's not true. Perry's Elvis obsession informs the way he deals with his employees, his employer, and his circle of friends. It also affects his choices in clothing, transportation, leisure activities, and the manner in which he handles stress in his life. And Lane Smith's Perry was unique among the various characterizations of our favorite editor. I don't know how much of it was the writers' guidelines, how much was the director's guidance, and how much was Lane's personal touch, but whatever it was he made Perry White a three-dimensional character throughout the entire run of the show.

Here's a website which might help.
Charlotte\'s Fictional Character Chart

Please recognize that the chart itself is copyrighted, although there are no fees involved in using it. I've found it very helpful.

I have to say that this is something I've never thought of when writing. No matter the characters I'm writing about, I've grown to know them by watching them on the show. I know what's right by instinct, I guess. If I write something down I know when it's not right for them. But it's never been a conscious thought process as I write. I just type and then review what comes out on the page when I stop typing and adjust as necessary.

LabRat

"Characterization"? What's that? I just write whatever the voices in my head are talking about. If I'm not sure what they'd do in a given situation, I ask them.

Always love questions about characterisation, Beth.

As Paul and Labrat have said, the characters just sort of did things as I wrote, and usually I went with that. (unless my betas objected )

Terry's point about Perry is interesting because it raises the issue of secondary and primary character traits.

For me, Perry's Elvis obsession is a secondary trait - it doesn't raise the question of those more basic and important traits which are character defining, like integrity, optimism/pessimism, etc. But his Elvis obsession does define his personality, which is not quite the same thing as character.

So how does that apply to writing Perry? Imo, that means I can mess with Perry's obsession if I'm writing an alt-fic but I can't mess with that aspect of his character that is inclined to be a 'fan' of a music pop culture icon. So in an alt fic, his obsession could be someone else. But it would have to be there to make me think, yeah that's Perry. Terry has a good point about how all that influences some of Perry's actions.

But what I couldn't mess with is Perry's passion for truth and integrity in journalism and his compassion which imo are primary character traits.

So if someone were writing a fic based in 'our' universe and Perry was Yo Yo Ma obsessive say, I'd be thrown out of the story. (not that Perry wouldn't have been making a better choice.


Interesting Beth. I agree with this, and yet I don't value it as much as I do evidence of primary character traits. So if CK/S looks like CK/S but acts like Jack the Ripper it just doesn't work. I think it's character that is more defining than appearance.

And yet, shallow person that I am, appearance matters, especially for Clark Kent and Lois Lane. If they don't look like L & C, then they aren't for me. Iwas toying with writing a fic in which Clark had red hair and freckles but still had the character of Clark Kent. Doesn't that make him Clark Kent? What does it matter how he looks? It should be trivial. But you know, I couldn't do it.

As you said, Beth:
Absolutely. The same thing too with speech patterns and key character traits.

I really like this question. Would be interested to see how specific characters would react to a "forbidden" question.
e.g.
- to Martha Kent, a very rude question - "Your boy doesn't look like you or Jonathan - is he adopted?"
- to Lois: Do you love your father?
etc

c.

For me, physicality is a big part of characterization - partly because I work with multiple versions of Lois and Clark - Clark Jerome is brown-eyed and built like a quarter-back. He is very comfortable in his body so it jars people and is noticed when he does something like dip his tie in his coffee. His Lois is 5'6", slender but athletic with brown eyes and full of nervous energy. (As she ages she becomes more secure and less jumpy.)

Clark Joseph is 6'4" with blue eyes and built like a swimmer. He's not comfortable in his body in confined spaces and it comes out as clumsiness - even though it's really extreme caution. His Lois is also 5'6", athletic with hazel eyes. She is not as obviously jumpy or angst-ridden as Clark Jerome's Lois, but she is angrier by nature.

As I write, I have to 'see' their physicality and 'hear' their voices.

That's interesting. I tend to locate physicality in the situation, more than the character per se. What I mean by this is that I tend to think of characterization as something immutable (hence, Clark being fundamentally a well-intentioned guy is part of what I see as "essential" when I read/write him) whereas how I use physicality is more dependent on the situation (so how he walks across a room will depend on whether Lois is waiting for him nearby with a smile or glaring at him from opposite corner). In physicality the variability that the context brings to it is what gets me.

Thanks for the question, Beth. I love, love, love discussions on reading/writing fic(I'm like a kid at a carnival ). It's cool to see what you and others have to say.

alcyone

LabRat's statement that we just know how Clark and Lois etc. react in certain situations is perfectly valid. Unless we're going to create different people with those names (which does, indeed, bring up the question of how much you can change a major character and leave the character intact), we're pretty much locked into Clark's innate honesty and lunkheadedness, Lois's skittishness towards men in general (in the early years, anyway), Martha's loving acceptance of her adopted son, Perry's bedrock integrity, and so forth.

But when we create new characters or alter minor ones, that's when the wheels start to turn. Male or female? Age? Occupation? Physical skills? Motivation? Purpose in the story?

As an example, I would like to use Bernie Klein in the recent (and very good) Dr. Who/L&C crossover "It's About Time" by BJ. Bernie was the bad guy, but he was still a bit klutzy and not totally committed to being bad, so Rose was able to defeat him rather handily. (And even though he didn't make an appearance, the real bad guy was Tempus.) Did making Bernie a sort-of bad guy throw you out of the story? It didn't ruin the story for me, and in fact it actually enhanced it, because it was both unexpected and - in my opinion - completely in character for Bernie if he were to let his insatiable thirst for scientific success go to his head. But maybe there were others who stumbled at that, who saw Bernie with the Kryptonite and the pistol and thought, Whoa, this ain't right, dude!

And that's okay, because we're not a monolithic entity here. We're all individuals who view things differently, and no one way is the "right" way. There are ways which are more successful than others, ways which are better received by the majority of readers, but unless a writer throws away the general rules of good writing, we should give that person's stories a chance. Doesn't mean we have to love those stories, mind you, just that we should be open to them.

I liked Carol's comment about Perry. I agree that his honesty and drive to print the truth are essential to his character, and if a Perry showed up on the boards who lacked that facet (like the way he was portrayed as a washed-up drunk on Smallville several years ago), then I'd lose some of that "willing suspension of disbelief" we all need in order to care so much about these fictional characters. But that doesn't mean that story would be bad, but - like Carol - I'd need a good reason to buy that version of Perry.

Like Dandello, the physical part of a character informs the directions the writer can take that character. There's a "don't do this" warning passage from the book "Characters & Viewpoint" (page 117) by Orson Scott Card where the heroine is pursued onto a roof and backed into a corner by the hulking, evil, knife-wielding brute chasing her. To get out of the mess, she picks up the bad guy and throws him over the edge of the roof to the ground nine stories below as she congratulates herself for all those years of jui-jitsu and weight-lifting. That's a terrible way to resolve that situation if the writer hasn't shown that side of the heroine previously. For example, we see Lois in the pilot kicking a bad guy around quite competently, so we accept it later on when she "gets physical" with a bad guy and opens up a can of whoop-up on him. Lois's character has a strong self-dependent streak, and is shows up in her martial arts skills. They're "in character" for her.

The difference between the way Dandello sees a character's physicality and the way Alcyone sees it are both perfectly legitimate. All it means is that their stories are going to "feel" different to the reader. For example, in my story "The Circle Squared," there's a tense fight between Lois and Nigel near the end. Nigel is trying to kill Lois, but she wins the fight and refrains from killing him while he's helpless. To me, both of those actions are in character for these two. Nigel is willing to kill if it's expedient, but Lois isn't, so she settles for leaving him for the police - but badly injured and unable to resist or flee. If I'd had Lois kill Nigel after she rendered him unconscious, it would be contrary to both the general character of Lois Lane as we know it and the way I'd written her in the story up to that point.

And I've caught some flak for "changing" my characters. In the "Road" series, for example, Clark doesn't hold out for Lois's love but marries Lana instead. Does that mean that he's a different person? i tried to write the story to show Lana as the different person, but some FOLCs didn't quite buy her as a nice person. In the second installment, I've hinted that Lex Luthor is not exactly a good guy but maybe a not-so-bad guy, and there are readers who don't buy that.

That's okay. At least they're reading!

This also points to a problem some very new writers (or ones doing Mary Sues) have. What do your characters know and how do they know it?

We are given that Lois knows martial arts, so that's not a surprise. But can she handle a gun? (In the People VS Lois Lane the answer is no.) Can she fly a plane? Can Clark? The reader may not need to know these things but the writer does and if Lois can fly a plane, where and when did she learn? And if she was busy learning to fly, what didn't she have time for?

An equally important point - what doesn't the character know? What are their limits? We are shown that while Clark may be able to speak 300+ languages, in terms of puzzle solving, Lois is as good, if not better.

All things to think about...

I know I rely on instinct in a certain way in my writing, but usually it isn't long before I stumble across something that surprises me. And I think: Why did I write that? Sure, it seems to fit, but why is my character acting in this way?

And that's where my musings take off.

The point about Perry is interesting. His Elvis obsession makes his character a little more unique, in my opinion. Like Terry and Carol mentioned, you don't NEED to have him be obsessed with Elvis to be Perry, but if he is obsessed with Elvis it changes him. Think about what would happen if Lois didn't like chocolate!

Dandello, I also "act out" scenes when I'm writing them. I'm a very visual person, and one of the biggest turn offs for me in writing is when I can't "see" the characters in my head. This doesn't mean I need detailed analysis of everything in a room, but I do need clear word choices that convey specific ideas to me.

This wouldn't be a reference to that one Smallville episode, would it?

Characters surprise me all the time. Especially original ones. If we take Lois and Clark out of context [into some alt/else world] then they can sometimes, but more original ones.

For instance, in my NaNo fic, Lois has an aunt. Great Aunt Louise. She was supposed to be the old dowager who hated kids and was an absolutely miserable person. And then I started writing her.

She still doesn't like kids much, but that's more because she was never around them [think Lois before she met Clark kind of thing]. But it turns out she has this really sad past and that's why she is the way she is but once you get to know her a bit, the crusty exterior drops off and she's a wonderful person. TOTALLY shocked me when she said she'd been engaged once. Seriously. My fingers typed it before my brain thought it. Okay, maybe not quite, but it was on the screen before I comprehended it. And I was so shocked by the fact that she'd been engaged that the reason why they never married REALLY caught me off guard. I literally sat there and stared at the screen for a minute trying to comprehend what she'd 'told' me.

Jonathan's innuendo in "Big Bed" is catching me off guard at the moment. I mean, it seems obvious that a fic with the title "It's a Big Bed" would have at least some innuendo. It's along the lines of "As long as Lois lets me have my turn in the bedroom tonight" but... more somehow to the point where I'm not sure I'll actually post that part . [If anyone who knows these things wants to tell me if I'm crossing the N line, I'd appreciate it - I don't think I am, but... PM away ]. I mean sure, he thinks Lois and Clark got married [it is an HiM rewrite] but still...

Anyway... best write while DH went to the bank...
Carol

In many of my writings, I have had the unfortunate(or fortunate) instances where the character decided that they didn't like where I intended them to go and did things their own way. Then I have to punt to find a way for MY end goal to still be accomplished....

James, who really didn't intend for there to be a long dry spell during Lara El's message for Martha, but, there it is, just waiting to be finished and read by y'all. (It is NOT my fault the Jonathan is not genetically compatible with Kryptonian technology, but it was the only way to have what I want to have happen later in the theoretical series I am building around Sg1 and LnC...) Lara's avatar just felt compelled to explain some things without really going into detail.

Good heavens, no. Did they do that? I was just looking for an extreme example of OoC behaviour to make the point that character traits matter more than looks.

c.

The way characters look and move don't play very much into my writing, but it is true for me that I 'listen' to the characters. I don't think I've ever written a story that ended up where I started - it always veers in another direction once the characters take over!

Carol, there was one episode recently where Dean Cain guest starred as this sociopathic killer who killed people for organs. As it turned out, he was immortal and when Chloe made some clever comment about him being like Jack the Ripper, he replied that he was Jack the Ripper.

All in all, I felt it was a poorly written episode and kind of sucked, but when you made that comment the parallels seemed to be too much of a coincidence.

It was a coincidence, though. I've never actually watched an episode of Smallville - what I've read about the show is pretty off-putting.

Doesn't sound like it was good episode, though.

c.