Purpose

We’ve discussed creating empathy for your characters and interest (through flaws). Now let’s move to the third component: linking your character to the plot by giving it a specific purpose.

At first glance, this might seem like it only refers to their skill or actions. But it’s much broader than that. As long as you can formulate a specific reason for a character to be in the story, you’re probably fine.

• “This character adds comic relief”
• “This character exists to create conflict with the hero”
• “This character exists to give information about the magical world to the hero”
• “This character exists to portray more about the setting and the world”

Perhaps it’s easiest to call it a role the character plays. They should all bring a unique skillset, unique issues, unique way of speaking or taking decisions. Everything else about them (clothing, history, preferences) should be a natural consequence of that role.

You can do it the other way around, of course. Create a character that looks cool, and then invent their personality based on their clothing. In my view, however, this is harder to do and leads to weak connections with the plot. And because character should create plot, you do not want such a weak connection.

Invent the core of the character first, then let all the details (such as outward appearance) flow from that.

Notice how I call it a “role”, like it’s a theatre show. You know what never happens in a show? Multiple people playing the same role at the same time.

Invent a unique role for each character. If two characters fill roughly the same role, they’re not distinct enough. (Remove one, change one, or combine them into one.)

Recognizable versus Superficial

This is a fine line. We want characters to clearly fill a certain role (and be recognized as such) … but without making them cliché or stereotypical!

We want somebody to be “the cool hacker of the group”, but don’t want to stop there. We want to efficiently communicate their role, without resorting to all the clichés about hackers.

The first rule is that superficial character is better than no character. It’s better to give somebody one clear personality trait (and nothing more), than giving characters nothing. (Perhaps because you forgot, perhaps in fear of making them a stereotype.)

I’d rather watch a movie with stereotypes, than one with … blank canvases and grey blobs that have no character at all. (Which, unfortunately, many writers seem fond of nowadays, perhaps to be politically correct. More on that in a minute.)

The second rule is that each character should have one stereotype that never changes. This stereotype? This one-sided character? This cliché set of traits? Make it the core of your character, the thing that never changes, but simply don’t stop there.

If you change everything about your character (through the story) … they just stop being that character. There must be one thing that stays. Make it the stereotype, as it’s an efficient catch-all that allows you to build more nuance on top.

An example

Take my hacker example. At heart, they’re a true hacker. They geek out about new gadgets, they prefer to sit in dark rooms away from the action, they think like a computer. If you stop there, you have a clear distinct character, but also a superficial one. Whenever a choice is presented, the audience already knows 100% what they’ll choose.

So don’t stop there. Give them more details, more specific ideas that showcase their personality. (Maybe they coded their own gadget and carry it around. You can invent a cool purpose for that gadget and use it in surprising ways. That is a specific, creative implementation of a general stereotype.)

Give them traits that conflict with the stereotype. For example, they very much enjoy nature. So part of them wants to stay inside behind a screen all day, part of them hates this and wants to go outside. Now you have an interesting character. When given the choice to join the action, what will they choose? We don’t know! We don’t know which side of them feels stronger; which side of them wins!

But whatever choice they make, it’s both surprising … and consistent with their character.

In the end, most people fall into similar categories. We stereotype because it helps us out a lot and is often quite accurate. But the devil is in the details. Stereotypes help quickly establish a character’s role within the larger story; the interesting part is how they deviate or grow from the stereotype.

Pitfall: recognizable only by name

I’ve read too many books in which I just completely lost track of the characters from page 100 onwards. Usually, there weren’t even many characters in the book, nor was the story that complex.

So why did I completely lose track? What made it very hard to follow? Because the characters were recognizable only by name.

They talked the same. They wanted the same thing. They had no other identifiable properties, at least not ones that were relevant to the plot.

At that point, names will not help you. I read the name, I have to think for a long time about who it was, and I usually cannot remember (because there is nothing to remember!) After a while, I stop trying, and maybe stop reading entirely.

Do not do this! Make sure the name of the character is just a shorthand for a wealth of interesting details about them. When writing the characters, regularly reinforce existing traits (or add new ones that match what we already know). If somebody dresses in a memorable style, keep mentioning their clothing or how they interact with it. If somebody has certain beliefs, make sure they shine through in every line of dialogue.

If you do it well, the audience should be able to recognize a character just by mentioning one detail about them. Just by reading their dialogue, or getting a hint of their clothing, they know exactly who it is.

And giving your characters a clear (and simple) purpose in the story is the easiest way to do this. Humans remember information through association. So the more you can associate with a character, the better.

Do not make characters recognizable only by name.

About diversity

Ah, the elephant in the room. The one I’ve danced around for a few chapters until I could properly discuss it.

As mentioned before, simple (unchangeable) facts about a character are by far the least interesting part. Empathy and restrictions form the emotional core of a character. Positive and negative traits, both learned or instinctual, form a compelling character. The color of their skin does not.

You should fill your stories with the best possible characters. That’s your top priority and the only thing that matters. If that means there’s an imbalance in any statistic measurable in the real world (such as gender or skin color), so be it. Because you’re not trying to write the real world: it’s literally called fiction.

You’re not even trying to emulate the real world. Most writing advice is about how stories are a heightened, streamlined and focused version of a reality.

Most stories take place in a specific, confined setting. If my story happens in China, well guess what, all the characters are going to be Chinese. Even though that’s obviously not the only nationality in the world. If my story happens at a boy’s school, guess what, most characters are going to be boys!

It is mindboggling to me why people have started writing stories just to match a certain statistic. And to many, so it seems, as those stories just get a worse and worse reception.

What diversity really means

Yes, diversity is important, because diversity enriches a story and allows you to tackle the theme (or emotional core) from many different angles.

But diversity just means difference or variation.

• If your theme is “friendship”, you want as many characters as possible with different views and experiences based on friendship.
• If you invent a fantasy world, you probably want characters from all walks of life, characters with different places in this world.
• If your story is heavily themed around nature, you want to fill your setting with many different terrain types and biomes. In such a story, making the whole country the same grassland would be a waste.

The meaning many people attach to it—diversity by matching some simple facts to a statistic in the real world—is worthless and usually a negative influence on the story. Because you’ve stopped trying to write the best possible story, to write … something else instead.

So here’s the simple rule.

When writing a story, simply make the best decisions for the story and nothing else. Adding diversity in ideas is often good, as it makes your story less superficial or predictable. But if there’s no clear reason why adding diversity would improve a story, don’t add it.

Because each character should serve its own purpose, adding multiple characters automatically adds diversity in ideas and personalities. Trust that and do not force unfounded diversity into the story.

But what if it does matter?

Yes, in many stories, a character’s appearance or gender does matter!

They lead to different experiences, different challenges, different lives. That’s exactly why you can’t just change them at will to match a statistic or seem politically correct. It ruins the story or makes it inconsistent at best. If you really want to include such details, make them a core part of the character and the story.

That’s why many stories pick a male and female lead. (Besides writers feeling the almost necessary inclusion of a romance at some point …) They have a different background or perspective on the world, because of their gender (or sexual orientation), so picking this duo allows the most diverse look into the story.

And if it doesn’t matter? Then … why are you even thinking about it? Don’t mention skin color. Or pick whatever you like at the moment.

If gender really doesn’t matter, then sure, go for it and try to make the characters exactly 50/50 (male and female). That’s a choice. But it’s equally fine if you make that 20/80, because it is your story and it’s up to you to invent the details.