Fringe Fiction Unlimited discussion

My best character was Bentley Grimes, the serial killer that is the main character of my book (Beneath the Mask of Sanity).

By best, I mean most realistic character. He steered the direction of the story more than any of my other characters ever have. I think he's the most realistic character I've ever written, and the most clearly I've ever seen a character.
He's a bad guy, a monster really, but he was always vibrant and active in my imagination as I wrote the story. Being Bentley was a bit scary at times, but I'm glad that I did it.

This answer may be a bit too philosophical, but I don't think I've created that best character yet. If I did, then everything I wrote afterwards wouldn't be satisfying anymore...

Well, I don't know if I have created that character eithet. What I do know is that I've created a few characters that felt the best for me to write—meaning I had fun wrting scenes from their point of view, was thrilled when it was their turn to waltz on the scene, and so on.

One of them being an immortal sociopath with a combat-masochist streak, I don't know what it tells about me. I'll chalk it up to a need for catharsis.

I'm with CG on this one. I don't feel I'e written the best character yet, and I hope I don't write that character unless I had six months to live, because otherwise, I would have nothing left to write for the rest of my life.

I will admit that the villain I've created for my thriller is the best villain I've created to date. We'll see if I can top that one. To me, he's the perfect villain, someone you just love to hate.

Lily wrote: "I'm with CG on this one. I don't feel I'e written the best character yet, and I hope I don't write that character unless I had six months to live, because otherwise, I would have nothing left to wr..."

I so love this answer.

As for me, I'll echo the "so far" sentiment and go with the protagonist of my first novel. I usually have a pretty good grasp on my characters as to how they'll react going through a story. This one threw me for a loop multiple times, making me completely alter plot points I had planned going forward. I'll always remember her very fondly.

Just an added thought. I've noticed it depends a lot whether an author's talent is focused on plot-driven or character-driven.

I also love writing evil characters. They are so much fun.

General Triple-X, a steak and spinach flavour Super Spud, is my favourite character so far. He was the ultimate hero but died valiantly.

Lena wrote: "I also love writing evil characters. They are so much fun."

Actors will tell you they have much more fun playing the villain. Heroes always have to fit in one box. They must be righteous, competent, brave, and likeable. Villains can be as mad as you want to make them!

That's true. Everyone knows perfect heroes are dull, but you still have to make your protag likeable enough for your reader to root for. The villain can be as bad as your twisted mind can make him!

Lena wrote: "That's true. Everyone knows perfect heroes are dull, but you still have to make your protag likeable enough for your reader to root for. The villain can be as bad as your twisted mind can make him!"

This is why antiheroes are so much fun. Just because a character's a protagonist, doesn't mean they can't go down a twisted path. He or she just has to remain engaging and sympathetic enough by way of motivation to pull it off.

Patrick wrote: "Lena wrote: "That's true. Everyone knows perfect heroes are dull, but you still have to make your protag likeable enough for your reader to root for. The villain can be as bad as your twisted mind ..."

That, too, is true, but it takes a writer of extraordinary skill to pull it off. I think immediately of Paul Newman in Hombre; I really didn't care whether he got shot or not.

Anti-heroes are my thing, for main characters. I've explored a variety of protagonists, and long since concluded: anti-heroes.

I find it rare though, a true anti-hero. So many times I've heard a character called an anti-hero and they're just referring to a character who does the opposite for the sake of doing the opposite.

I've read way too many books where the author went too far, though, and lost my sympathy. Dexter is the best anti-hero I can think of. A lot of times, I just want the protag to die...lol. And that's when I stop reading.

So...you have to have balance. I don't think anyone writes straight heroes anymore, because they are dull. Everyone is now writing anti-heroes, which often backfires, imo.

Personally, I haven't seen a true anti-hero in books in... let me think... about twenty years. I think the last time I saw that, though I might be forgetting a title or two, is Roland in the Dark Tower series.

Dexter is a serial killer. Breaking Bad, now that most definitely involves a real anti-hero.

Maybe I don't have the same definition of an anti-hero. I just think of it as a central character who lacks, well, heroic qualities. Hence, the Dexter example. Heroes used to be all good (think Superman) and now they are all flawed. Sometimes, I think authors take it too far, and lose the readers' sympathy. Yes, we want to read about dynamic, interesting characters. But we don't want to read about a total sh**. If that makes sense.

Makes total sense, and I agree. It's hard to sympathize with any character if a reason isn't given, no matter how small.

An anti-hero is still a hero, they just go about acheiving whatever they want to acheive a little differently. The best example in history is Robin Hood, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. He's still a criminal and wanted outlaw, which makes him an anti-hero because he did such good things for the oppressed over-taxed poor.

Adding a crapload of flaws for a character just for the sake of flaws, gives me the impression of a meaningless character, and no sympathy.

I'll throw my definition up here just for discussion purposes: A traditional hero must be:

1. Moral. It is the morality that enables him to tell right from wrong.

2. Brave. The personal courage enables him to act on that knowledge.

3. Competent. The competence is what enables his victory. And

4. Likeable. The reader must identify with him.

If he lacks Morality, he is most likely a villain.
If he lacks Courage, it is hard to have a story at all, although some of those fantasies about the blacksmith's apprentice that takes on the Big Bad may qualify, but it seems that he must find that courage at the end.
If he lacks Competence, you have moved into some form of slapstick; think Beverly Hills Ninja.
And if he lacks likeability, voila, the anti-hero is born.

I love all my characters. I feel like I discover them, rather than create them, and it's always fun to dig deeper and learn new things about them. They always surprise me.

Readers seem to like my characters, too, but the one who seems to get the most love is Roric Rossony, from He's incredibly multi-faceted, yet it all works together as a consistent whole. He's the one of my characters (so far) that a reviewer has said she's fallen in love with. I have to say he's one of my favorites too, but choosing my favorite character would be like having to choose my favorite one of my kids.

Robin Hood

1. Moral
2. Brave
3. Competent
4. Very linkeable, but hated by the Sheriff of Nottingham

In my honest opinion, anyone who tries to protray a character as an unlikable anti-hero is doing it wrong.

If, however, an author wants to protray a character as unlikeable for a plot-related reason, that's the author's choice.

My novella involves an unlikable main character, yet I gave the reader the opportunity to feel her pain and see the reasons behind her choices. However, I would never call her an anti-hero.

Sorry to ramble, but I just wanted to state a nagging suspicion. Alpha male archtype, which is very common, expecially lately with the huge influence of the romance genre. Alpha males done badly, I have observed many times, comes across as a half-hearted attempt at an anti-hero. And, whether anyone agrees or not, and apologies for bringing politics into the discussion, but it is a common opinion to see alpha males as the opposite of femenism, or female empowerment, if you will.

Lily wrote: "Robin Hood

1. Moral
2. Brave
3. Competent
4. Very linkeable, but hated by the Sheriff of Nottingham

In my honest opinion, anyone who tries to protray a character as an unlikable anti-hero is doin..."

Perhaps #4 should have been phrased, "The reader must want to identify with him. Also, I refer to the reader liking him; obviously the villain must by definition despise him.

Returning to my example, Hombre, Paul Newman's character ultimately saves everyone at the end, but only out of the desire to keep himself alive. He never expresses one altruistic thought, never finds nor even seeks redemption, and I never once gave a flying f*$k what happened to him. To my mind, when you look up Antihero in the dictionary, you find his picture.

I don't have more than a nodding acquaintance with romance, but I am familiar with the syndrome. Don't know why. Perhaps you are expressing the female equivalent of what men feel when they call a woman of strong personality a bitch. But biker boys are an easy target. Consider this, too: For every million of us who think we're great writers, there's probably one who actually is. The great writer can nuance the subtlety into even an alpha male to make him reasonable and sympathetic; the rest of us just write the stereotype.

Jack wrote: "Lily wrote: "Robin Hood

1. Moral
2. Brave
3. Competent
4. Very linkeable, but hated by the Sheriff of Nottingham

In my honest opinion, anyone who tries to protray a character as an unlikable anti..."

Perhaps, who knows? It's only a suspicion I've had for a while.

While Paul Newman in Hombre is a good example, the real definining feature of any anti-hero is more so in their actions. The end goal and the sensibilities of anti-heroes are the same as heroes, but they take different approaches.

To me, an anti-hero is someone who takes an "any means necessary" approach to their end goals.
They have to be someone you like and someone you can identify with.
I like the Dexter example. I would literally be rooting for him to murder someone to help cover his tracks. Dexter is likable. He's not evil even though he's compelled to do things that are extra-legal.
I also think that it's important when you have an anti-hero that you have an ultra bad bad-guy. Almost an archetype really. No redeeming qualities. Because the juxtaposition of their extreme brand of evil makes the anti-hero look good by comparison. Even though he's not the standard cookie-cutter hero.

My best character is Taku Kokawa the main character in my novel Demon's Blood. He's really interesting and fun to write as he has so many different sides to him.

My best character is Javier ''Bones'' Jones from my novel, A Bloody Bloody Mess In The Wild Wild West. He's rude, ruthless, foul and pretty much every bad Mexican outlaw from a film all rolled into one.

Thanks Sarah, he's the antagonist but you can't help but like his brutal demeanor.

Mine is a tenacious teddy bear named Theo who fights to save his owner from the boogie man. He's brave, heroic, and all-around cool. He can be prickly, but it's only because of his troubled past. I had no idea that I could get inside a teddy bear's head like I did with him!

C.G. wrote: "This answer may be a bit too philosophical, but I don't think I've created that best character yet. If I did, then everything I wrote afterwards wouldn't be satisfying anymore..."

It's worth remembering that the guy who said everyone has one book in them wrote 50.

As a writer, I think I enjoy my villains the most. I am someone who loves antagonists that are not cardboard cutouts of Bad Guys.

Clearly, I love my Good Guys. I have huge crushes on some of them.

There's a few supporting characters I am particularly fond of writing. But I think as a writer, I most enjoy my villains, particularly Rob Yarl, the bigoted and not-too-bright farmer who finds himself in a tangled mess because of his violent brother. The reason I enjoy villains so much is because nobody ever thinks they are in the wrong. Bad Guys never think themselves to be bad guys. So in order to produce a real, believable character, I am challenged to justify behavior and thought I am ethically and morally opposed to. Which is a mentally stimulating exercise.

I have two characters that I've created that fit the bill. I have Fire, the heroine of my books Fire At Dawn and The Stormrider. She's gaining more confidence and growing every time I write a paragraph with her.
My second character is Vespias. She has been put through the ringer and yet she remains tenacious to the point of being bull-headed. Both women are strong and yet retain their femininity...I think.

Michael wrote: "Mine is a tenacious teddy bear named Theo who fights to save his owner from the boogie man. He's brave, heroic, and all-around cool. He can be prickly, but it's only because of his troubled past. I..."

Sounds cool!!! And I bet you could do it.

Sarah wrote: "Having a good plot is important, possibly as important as good writing. But without good characters to carry the action the whole story just, well to be frank, sucks.
So....tell us about the best, ..."

My best character is Jamie in Shaman's Blues. He gets such intense reader reactions. They love him, want to get close to him, take care of him, tell him to go away... find him frustrating, complex, and so real that the one person who didn't quite like him told me she felt guilty about it, he got to her so deeply. He showed up, and took over. I created my other characters, but Jamie sought me out. He started out as a minor character in another book but he took up so much space I had to give him his own book. It's still part of the Mae Martin series, but it's the one that's very much about the mystery of a person: Jamie.

It's weird. I love my main character, Jordan, and I love her love interest, Michael, but I find myself absolutely infatuated with two other main characters: my villain, Belial, and Michael's brother, Gabriel. And the weirder part is that I love them for completely opposite reasons.

I love Belial because he's a conundrum. Here we have an arrogant, selfish, vain, accomplished murderer who is 100% grade-A evil and loves corrupting everything he can get his hands on...and yet he has a soft spot for a girl. He's been a demon since the War in Heaven, meaning the number of women he's had sex with is pretty much in the six digits by now, but he can't help feeling attached to Jordan because he can't have her. I think what I ended up liking so much about Belial is that he has this weird sense of nobility, because he doesn't want Jordan for her body. If that were the case, he's a million times stronger than her and he could take what he wanted if it were just physical, but that's not his problem. His problem is he wants her to want him the way he wants her. Plus, he's a masochist so engaging in a relationship with a woman who doesn't want him hurts in both a good and a bad way for him.

Gabriel I love because he's the first complete sweetheart character I've ever written. Most of my characters have an edge to them, whether it's cynicism or sarcasm, but Gabriel is just adorable. He's always supportive, helpful, and faithful to his brother and to Jordan, whom he's basically adopted as his younger sister. I don't know what it is, but I find myself so attached to him that it was hard putting him through hell in the third and final novel.

Those are my darlings. Sorry if I went off long on them. It's just liberating to chat about my work to people who understand what it's like to have your own little darlings running around in the fictional realms.

Hi everyone. Great topic!

My best character, or at least the one I enjoy the most, is still locked away in a folder on my laptop but I plan to let her out some time next year.

Genevieve Saint-Clair is a true anti-hero, walking the thin line between the villains and heroes of the story. She isn’t flaky though. Genevieve has a very clear understanding of the world and her place in it, but she’ll do anything to protect the one person she loves most. Her moral ambiguity makes her extremely exciting to write. Genevieve can be taken to places that classic heroes simply can’t, and I love the philosophical questions her actions continue to pose.
Is it okay to do bad things for good reasons? How much villainy is too much? Is she noble or selfish or sometimes both at once?
She started with a small part but once she got in my head she took on a life of her own. Her unpredictability and the way she pushed the boundaries of good and evil quickly took over my book and she eventually became a main character.