Emerald's Rant About Dialog and Character Development

[Emerald]

Allow me to preface this rant by saying that I do believe the majority of people in this community are fine, competent writers. For that reason I'm going to treat everyone as such, and am going to forego talking about things like grammar, cliches, pacing, creativity, etc - the basics, in other words. The issue I want to discuss - which is something I've noticed to be a bit of a weak spot with most writers - is characters.

The most important thing to remember when writing is that you are a conduit. There are two things - your world, and your audience - and as a writer, it is your sole responsibility to connect these two things. How good a writer you are determines just how strong a connection there is, and just how much the audience loves your world.
And the most important thing to remember about audiences is that they identify with what is 'true'. So, it all boils down to this:

Writers must write the truth.

Now, what is the 'truth', you ask? That's best served by an example:

a) Average guy, Joe, is walking down the street, when he sees an old man being mugged. He decides to intervene, and manages to disarm the mugger by resourcefully using his environment.

b) Average guy, Bill, is walking down the street, when he sees an old man being mugged. He decides to intervene, and in the process gets shot in the stomach. He goes septic and dies due to massive organ failure before the ambulance arrives.


Example a, is a lie. It would never (or very rarely) happen in the real world - the audience's world - and so it detracts from the realism of your world.
Example b, is a truth. It's entirely possible (and is, in fact, the most likely outcome), and as a result, the audience is drawn in closer (perhaps a similar thing even happened to someone they know, and so you strengthen their identification with the events of your story)

Truth and untruth can be found on a much smaller scale, of course. Dialog is the most noticeable area - dialog should be as true as possible. Even the most inobservant audience can pick out parts of dialog that "nobody would ever say." It's a bad habit that dies hard - but writing realistic, believable, true dialog is all about observing your fellow humans. This is why even the most inventive, brilliant writers can be terrible at dialog - you can't write true to how people talk, if you don't go out and actually hear how they talk. Television is a poor substitute for the lessons real life can teach you.

Anyway, back to the point of truth. You may be thinking 'fine, so I'll simply right true-to-life, and everything will be great'. Wrong. The truth may make people believe more strongly in your world, but it wont make your world great. Most people are familiar with the truth - with reality. Nobody wants to hear a story about a guy who leads a perfectly normal life in which exciting things rarely happen to him - and when they do, they're over so fast, and are resolved in such a way that they aren't really that exciting or interesting.
Haven't you ever heard that a good story-teller embellishes his story?

Now, this may sound totally contradictory to the above bolded statement, but think of being a good writer as being a good liar:

A writer must balance fact with fiction

You must write the truth, but not necessarily the whole truth. A good liar includes just enough truth to make his lies plausible - the greatest writers are the ones who can perfectly balance truth with embellishment.



Now, let's look at this in the context of character development.

Most character development centers around dialog. Voicing their thoughts is the primary way in which you gain insight into other characters. Which means, you need them to express themselves in a realistic way, in order for them to be realistic.
There's three important things to remember in this regard:

1. Don't rush it. Mystery surrounding a character is never a bad thing. It actually generates interest in the characters, since it causes the questions to arise before they're answered. That's important. When a character you've just met starts spewing their whole life stories at you before you even know their name, it usually is a bad thing.

2. Always have a reason for developing the character. You may not have noticed, but most people in real life don't just start randomly giving their 'backstory'. Character development should fit into the context of the story - it shouldn't simply happen because an action sequence just ended and you want to wind things down.

3. Stay true to the character. If a character is shy and quiet in some parts, and is suddenly aggressive and argumentative in others, the least you should do is hint at some explanation. Having complex characters is fine, and having them act out-of-character occasionally is fine too (if it's contextual), but having a character with a totally inconsistent personality (who isn't demented) is just confusing.



In closing, the main idea behind writing deep, three-dimensional characters, is by observing the real people around you. The wider variety of people you 'experience', the wider variety of characters you'll be able to craft.


Sorry for the monster post. If you've managed to read it all, I hope you've gleaned something worthwhile from it. Feel free to leave your comments. I go sleep now.

[Vince Twelve]

I think your "true" example b is severely flawed.  Someone mugging a random old man on the street will rarely be carrying a gun and is likely just going for some quick cash and not interested in chalking up a murder charge.  The moment someone intervenes, it's likely that the mugger beats a hasty retreat if the intervening party is in the least bit physically intimidating, rather than struggle with two people.  Even more likely in the real world is the situation that whoever witnesses the old man getting mugged, decides to avoid the situation all together in their own interest.  I don't think that anyone would agree that your example b is, as you said, the most likely outcome.  And our disagreement underlines the weakness of the first half of that rant.  However, the second half about lying, but lying realistically is valid if obvious.

Obviously making the rules (or "truth") within your story internally consistent is important, as is making those rules apparently consistent with those of the real world if your story is set therein.  The writer gets to decide what is true for the characters in the interest of making the story an interesting bit of escapism and not a confining bit of tedium, but has to be careful that the events of the story maintain the suspension of disbelief.

[vict0r]

*applauds Vince*

[lo_res_man]

Besides, septic means infected, how the heckles cakes does a wound get septic before the ambulance arrives? I admit a gunshot wound to the gut could and would be likely to kill a man, but get your own facts straight before you haring others
Besides, the playable character is the hero of the story, and what is a hero? One who makes enormous risks and attempts dangerous feats, and lands them. In short, a hero is a fool who succeeds. Sure you can make an adventure game about a hero who fails miserably, a fool, but it would hard to make very enjoyable. And people play games to be entertained.

[miguel]

I also agree that your examples were a bad choice, Emerald, :(sorry, although must of what you wrote is true IF you're writing a novel.
A novel has the necesary lenght to allow the writer to explore characters and their personality, backgrounds, locations, etc...
When writing for a adventure game, the author does the same with a diferent aproach, he will hint things at the player through the game, he'll add cutscenes that help building up his characters and react to the game world, thus showing  the character view.
I believe that good writing for games must be smart and inteligent because usual players are used to it (most are into movies, books, theatre, music, etc...), BUT ALSO a good game must have good graphics and animations and music. I believe you have The 3 Ingredients there: story,art,music.

[Play_Pretend]

I never met a single crook that didn't bolt as soon as he saw me coming...amateur thieves and muggers almost always count on keeping their single victim intimidated and controlled for just long enough to get the money/drugs/whatever, and are keen on running for it as soon as they do.  But if witnesses or possible defenders show up they feel like they've lost control of the situation and will most likely run for it.  Of course, if a stupid hero-complex person charges the mugger and starts attacking before the mugger has a chance to run, it'll probably be disastrous for the wannabe hero, because the flight of "fight or flight" just got removed by the unthinking "savior", and even rats fight in a corner, especially if they're armed for a mugging.

Of course, this doesn't account for a mugger hopped up on drugs, insane or somehow otherwise impaired who are just going to be violent anyways.  But every fight I ever got into when I was catching thieves professionally ended really fast because they were so focused on just "AHHH!  I have to get away!" that they would just struggle to free themselves rather than turning and fighting me.  Those seconds before they realize they can't escape and start fighting back are usually enough to gain an almost total advantage over them.  Plus I'm a big and scary mofo in a fight.

[Eggie]

I'm not sure I agree with the value you put on 'realism'.
In case you haven't noticed; real life would make a pretty crappy computer game.

[veryweirdguy]

Eggie speaks the truth. FEAR HIM.

It's a topic that I have been thinking about a lot lately - what is more important to an audience: escapism or realism? Do people searching for fiction want a substitute for their reality, or an extension of it? I think most would agree the former.

Therefore, is it really necessary to "tell the truth" as you are saying? Sure, write what you know - but apply it to an unfamiliar context. Relating to characters in any form of fiction is important, but this does not necessarily mean "This character is a caucasian male, aged 20 - 30 and shares many of my personality traits therefore I relate." Relating to characters and forming attachments with them is reliant on their relationships with others and their reaction to any situation they are put in.

Often people will complain that a character in a film/book/whatever is unrealistic because "such and such a character would never do that. It's not realistic." However, more often than not it is not "unrealistic" per se, just out of character. Therefore I would argue consistency within your story is more important than realism. Be as wacky as you like, just make sure you keep it up.

Characters in fiction - most notably heroes - are rarely realistic. They are brave, they are adventurous, they are daring. Humans, in general, aren't like that. When asked to go on a quest, most people will turn it down. The reason these characters are so relatable and compelling is because they are enjoyable within their context and because it is escapism for the audience.

Foooooor example, let us take my (and many other's) favourite adventure game, the great Grim Fandango. Realistic? I think not. But it's success is clear: we relate to and care for the characters (especially Manny) because of their interactions and how they face adversity. Even if it is not how you personally would act (in a realistic environment), you respect the character's actions and see hoe they make sense in their personal context. This is what makes them successful characters.

[Vince Twelve]

Exactly.  Having the story internally consistent is far more important than having it consistent with the real world.

[Boy, it's nice to have the forums back!]

[Nikolas]

[Boy, it's nice to have the forums back!]

Hell yes!

I was without a homepage for so many days... :'(

Emerald: I would argue that it's far more impotant to have coherency in your story rather than realism. Although I do understand what you mean, a story will bedressed up with a bit of drama, so things can be exxagerated...

[Jack Sheehan]

Well Emerald I'm going to forgo the well thought out rebuttals that people have posted and say that thats Bollocks.

[Ultra Magnus]

Emerald,
Instead of lecturing those who have been making games for years, why not make your own game and lead by example?
If you are right, people will see that.

[Andail]

Making fiction "real" for the audience while still providing an exciting story is not just a question of balance; it's a veritable paradox. If you read a novel (or a short story or whatever) you'll only appreciate it for being "real" as long as it deals with things that you're familiar with. A murder story that starts off with the detective taking a shower, getting dressed and heading for work falls within the boundaries of being "real" for the reader, and will provide easy immersion for him. As soon as the detective fires his first shot at the murderer, 99.9% of the audience will experience how this immersion drops slightly (regardless of how well written the story is, since readers can only relate fully to a situation they've experienced themselves), and the story will demote from "real" to simply "realistic".

But what you wrote in your initial post has little to do with a sense of realism, it has more to do with probability, and as such it's not very relevant. You establish realism by explaining things, by setting up moods. You create probable stories by compiling statistics, which is not interesting.

More important than being probable, is to be coherent, like Nikolas said. There can be a method to the madness, and no matter how unlikely a character may act, it's vital to make him act coherently.

Lastly, as someone has already stated...if you want to talk about realism, make sure you deliver real facts...if a person dies immediately from a gun shot, it's not from an infection, it's from shock.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

I will just say that I disagree with the notion of 'losing' immersion in a novel when events occur that lie beyond your realm of firsthand experience; I've read many novels where the most fantastic parts of the story were the most compelling and immersive for me, so really, it's about how well the storyteller tells his story that determines how deep you get lost in the narrative.  Of course, you have to actually have some interest in the subject matter for it to really draw you in.

[nihilyst]

But what you wrote in your initial post has little to do with a sense of realism, it has more to do with probability, and as such it's not very relevant. You establish realism by explaining things, by setting up moods. You create probable stories by compiling statistics, which is not interesting.

Nice said. I second that completely.

[Andail]

I will just say that I disagree with the notion of 'losing' immersion in a novel when events occur that lie beyond your realm of firsthand experience; I've read many novels where the most fantastic parts of the story were the most compelling and immersive for me, so really, it's about how well the storyteller tells his story that determines how deep you get lost in the narrative.  Of course, you have to actually have some interest in the subject matter for it to really draw you in.

Allright, maybe I generalised a bit there. Let's say that it's easier to become immersed in a story whose elements are well familiar to you. I remember how love stories in general became vastly more accessible for me after my first love affair, and how a story about separation climbed in personal relevance after my first break-up. Likewise, I anticipate that books or movies about having children (or raising them, or losing them) will touch me deeper once I get my own children, no matter how well the writer conveys his feelings.
Crime and Punishment will affect you stronger if you've experienced severe guilt. People who've struggled together to overcome economical hardships might appreciate Grapes of Wrath better than those who haven't.
Some things you need to have gone through, touched and smelled and dealt with, and if you haven't you can only hope to imagine what it must be like.
All people can relate to losing and missing someone, but not all can easily relate to the practice of eating a human heart...

[miguel]

I will just say that I disagree with the notion of 'losing' immersion in a novel when events occur that lie beyond your realm of firsthand experience; I've read many novels where the most fantastic parts of the story were the most compelling and immersive for me, so really, it's about how well the storyteller tells his story that determines how deep you get lost in the narrative.  Of course, you have to actually have some interest in the subject matter for it to really draw you in.

Allright, maybe I generalised a bit there. Let's say that it's easier to become immersed in a story whose elements are well familiar to you. I remember how love stories in general became vastly more accessible for me after my first love affair, and how a story about separation climbed in personal relevance after my first break-up. Likewise, I anticipate that books or movies about having children (or raising them, or losing them) will touch me deeper once I get my own children, no matter how well the writer conveys his feelings.
Crime and Punishment will affect you stronger if you've experienced severe guilt. People who've struggled together to overcome economical hardships might appreciate Grapes of Wrath better than those who haven't.
Some things you need to have gone through, touched and smelled and dealt with, and if you haven't you can only hope to imagine what it must be like.
All people can relate to losing and missing someone, but not all can easily relate to the practice of eating a human heart...

hello, I just want to add somethings here,
I agree that personal experiences help to relate to a story, and the choice of books you've choosen are not only classics but meaningfull for the subject we are dealing. Everytime I see children sick on TV I get really emotional because I am a recent father and for 9 months of my life I just wanted for the baby and mother to be healthy, so yes, some stories work better on some people than other but real talented writers can build those emotions on readers even when they have never experienced such events.
I also want to say that writing for adventure games is a totally diferent thing than novels. The pace is diferent and rithm can be a tricky matter with puzzles that aren't intuitive and last for hours, so I think we all should focus on the basics of adventure gaming writing and create them if there is need for it.

[Vince Twelve]

Likewise, I anticipate that books or movies about having children (or raising them, or losing them) will touch me deeper once I get my own children, no matter how well the writer conveys his feelings.

This is absolutely true!  I used to be able to watch any movie and never have more than a sniffle or a damp eye.  But now, having had a child, anything involving losing children, especially babies, to sickness, danger, or even just distance tears me up inside.  There was an episode of House a short time after the birth of my daughter that opened with a mother having a seizure while taking a bath with her baby and the father coming in to find the baby completely submerged in the bath.  I remember watching that, and pausing for an hour before I could get up the strength to watch the rest of the episode.

[miguel]

I know the feeling Vince Twelve ( I am a fan of your work, btw), it's just stronger than you, I thank god everyday when I wake up and see my boy smiling at me.
Kids make adults believe that the future can be better, now that's one thing writers explore often, and I think it has been done in games before ( ICO for PS2 shows a bond between a boy and a girl trying to escape hazzardly situations and turned a normal game into something of a cult game ), movies do it often ( the recent movie staring Naomi Watts and Vigo Mortensen is all about a baby's life in the end although it shows Russian Mafia insights).
So we can all agree that sane adults will allways protect babies and suffer if they do, thus making it a good theme for a project.

[Andail]

Shadow of the Colossus - which I believe is some sort of sequel to ICO - is a brilliant metaphor for the relationship of two lovers. And a great game.