What part of a character is most important to you when making a shrine? The way the character is when introduced, the way said character was for the majority of the story or the final result
( Read more... )
What part of a character is most important to you when making a shrine? The way the character is when introduced, the way said character was for the majority of the story or the final result
( ... )
I think all the elements of a character are equally important and weigh the same value. The way the character is introduced is your marketing pratically - you'll pay more attention to a character with a big or unique breakthrough. How they develop also matters, as it is a proof of the writer's ability as well. Have you seen elements of their character during interaction or even physical movements? Do you see a change in them over time? It's all a "show, not tell" part I love. Finally, obviously, the end should matter because it marks the point of their character. Flat characters or gimmick characters won't have anything too interesting, but fleshed characters will have an interesting phase you can compare and contrast with their initial poses
( ... )
The part of a character that is important to me when making a shrine is basically how much I can relate to them on a personal level. If we share even a few things in common I can understand where they are coming from and even think about how it can relate to my own experiences. For example there is Data from Star Trek TNG aiming to better himself (and also trouble with understanding humor which I actually tend to have a problem with as well a lot of times) or even Tohru Honda from Fruits Basket who tries to look at the bright side of things and remain optimistic no matter the situation. Because of this I am usually more prone to shrine characters that change a lot as I myself am always changing (and for the better I hope!) I find characters that don't change to not really be all that interesting and oftentimes difficult to relate to so I generally don't care much for them.
What I like to analyze in dynamic characters is their moments of transition. If the character is well written, I can write about this transition almost seamlessly, without suddenly shifting gears to one version of the character to the next. Then I can focus on the key events that have an impact on the character, but I'd never put each phase in a box, if I explain myself.
For what concerns your second question, writing a good dynamic character usually requires more skill, so I admire the workmanship put into pulling them off, as an added thing. I would say I prefer shrining characters with a lot of development because, well, you have more material to play with. I can like static and dynamic characters regardless, I just find it harder to write a lot about them because, after all, what do you write besides "I like them and they're awesome"?!
I makes me think about how I like character that learn but don't change -too- much. Maybe it's because I'm the same way, I change only in small amounts (so far in life at least) so yeah, I relate.
Comments 10
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
For what concerns your second question, writing a good dynamic character usually requires more skill, so I admire the workmanship put into pulling them off, as an added thing. I would say I prefer shrining characters with a lot of development because, well, you have more material to play with. I can like static and dynamic characters regardless, I just find it harder to write a lot about them because, after all, what do you write besides "I like them and they're awesome"?!
Reply
lol! been there XD Though I find it easier to show the awesome with fanworks more so than a shrine.
Reply
Reply
Reply
I makes me think about how I like character that learn but don't change -too- much. Maybe it's because I'm the same way, I change only in small amounts (so far in life at least) so yeah, I relate.
Reply
Leave a comment