How do you design character hooks?

[sknox]

AnyaKimlin's examples--which are excellent--point the way. She gives us not merely descriptions, she tells us how the character moves through them, reacts to them. A character paints his house every five years. That raises a question--why so regularly? And paints it the same color. OK, now that's really odd. An OCD person, very possibly. The flatscreen TV his sons bought and a recorder that is useful when the grandkids stay over--a statement that establishes the character's and shows an aspect of his personality in a single sentence.

That's a hook, because it gives the reader something to react to. The hook is like a bit of movement in the forest, or down the street. What was that? Did you see that? Hear that? A person's first instinct is to look again, to listen more closely. That's the hook. Now you have to deliver a character worthy of the hook.

The OP asked about that. There are tons of guides; I recommend getting a few. One or more will resonate. My own contribution is this: I have to care. Before the reader can care about a character, I have to care. With a principal character, I usually have some feeling about them right from the first, but with secondary characters it can be something of a formal exercise. I write backstory, and this must be more than mere narrative. I specifically look for conflict--setbacks, difficulties, even trauma. I look for triumphs as well. I try to get to a point where I imagine someone criticizing that character, or praising them, and I come along and say here, let me tell you about this guy. Here's why he's like that. And here's something I bet you didn't know. I need to be able to gossip about them.

This emotional involvement is crucial, for me. If I expect you to care, I must care first.

 

[The Bluestocking]

This emotional involvement is crucial, for me. If I expect you to care, I must care first.

Exactly.

I practice a variation of this: if I don't enjoy spending time with a character, why would someone else be interested in him/her/them?

The character might or might not be likeable but they must be compelling/interesting enough to hook the reader into the story and to keep the reader in the story. Character drives the story and is what makes a story unique even if the basic structure of said story is one that has been used over and over again.

 

[Penny]

If you are looking for something specifically to make a character interesting you are probably approaching the character from the wrong angle.

People are born by their experiences and as a result of their own actions, if you look at the background story for a boring character, you may find it is almost entirely things that have happened TO that character, remember we are born by our actions too. have your character show some agency in the creation of their own backstory.
This often leads to interesting things.

I approach character creation from several perspectives.
1- what purpose does the characters existence serve.
- you got to be in the story for a reason bro

2- Does this character make sense.
- character gotta be consistent and act according to their own backstory and interests

3- Does this character have agency.
- does this character have the ability to change, have their choices effected the world?

4- Are we eccentric enough or are we too eccentric?
- does this character do something odd and unexpected, this adds flavour, your drug kingpin might be a tough mean criminal but perhaps he has an interest in Koi carp or expensive sneakers. - it adds that little bit of spice that makes them believable, just make sure its not cat lady level of eccentric

5- Pander to the audience <---- Most important!!! make sure your main character does things in line with your intended audiences desires, No one wants to read about the boring man sitting down and begging the bank manager for a loan, they want the character to make a statement!, kick down the door, sit in the chair without being asked, put your feet up on the managers desk, then tell him you need a loan.

 

[The Big Peat]

If you are looking for something specifically to make a character interesting you are probably approaching the character from the wrong angle.

Maybe. Maybe not. I'm thinking about the "Eyepatch and hook" advice you get from some screenwriters - the idea that every character needs some sort of standout trait to make them memorable - and the way some swear that characters they loved only got attention when they added them.

I think sometimes that thinking works even on ourselves. That finding this bigger than life characteristic, this easily memorable thing, this intriguing description... something like that hooks you, gets you thinking and from there, you find the interesting character.

Obviously YMMV but I think there's a good case for it being the right angle, for some people sometimes.

5- Pander to the audience <---- Most important!!! make sure your main character does things in line with your intended audiences desires, No one wants to read about the boring man sitting down and begging the bank manager for a loan, they want the character to make a statement!, kick down the door, sit in the chair without being asked, put your feet up on the managers desk, then tell him you need a loan.

JK Rowling and Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them disagrees

(Sorry, I couldn't resist)

 

[HareBrain]

Maybe. Maybe not. I'm thinking about the "Eyepatch and hook" advice you get from some screenwriters - the idea that every character needs some sort of standout trait to make them memorable

That can definitely help. Where some people perhaps go wrong is coming up with that one trait and then saying "Job done".

 

[AnyaKimlin]

Maybe. Maybe not. I'm thinking about the "Eyepatch and hook" advice you get from some screenwriters - the idea that every character needs some sort of standout trait to make them memorable - and the way some swear that characters they loved only got attention when they added them.

I
(Sorry, I couldn't resist)

I think in the BBC it's called the Dog, the something (can't remember what the something is) and the trumpet. The most famous example was a character called Sonia in Eastenders. All the focus groups and response to her was that she was hated. They gave her a trumpet, which she played badly in within two weeks her popularity had completely reversed.

 

[Martin Gill]

“No one wants to read about the boring man sitting down and begging the bank manager for a loan,”

Which is basically about ten chapters of Name of the Wind, so apparently they do

 

[The Bluestocking]

“No one wants to read about the boring man sitting down and begging the bank manager for a loan,”

Which is basically about ten chapters of Name of the Wind, so apparently they do

 

[The Big Peat]

I think in the BBC it's called the Dog, the something (can't remember what the something is) and the trumpet. The most famous example was a character called Sonia in Eastenders. All the focus groups and response to her was that she was hated. They gave her a trumpet, which she played badly in within two weeks her popularity had completely reversed.

And I think the key part here is it its something she did.



Because to most readers, the most revealing facet of character, the most important thing about them, is what characters do. No amount of menacing words or wide eyed legend or backstory makes a villain as menacing as them, well, menacing someone.

So maybe this thread has been chasing the wrong idea all the time - it's not about traits, or quirks, it's about what the character does that makes them interesting. Or, maybe you put it in reverse, come up with interesting scenes, and wonder what it may tell about the characters involved.

 

[Steve Harrison]

I am probably repeating The Big Peat's comments, but I find many of the most interesting characters are regular, uninspiring people who start out in denial, are reluctant to become involved with anything out of the ordinary and have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the story. Characters many, if not most, readers can completely and instantly relate to.

Once readers identify with this type of character, they become very interested in how they will handle the events as they unfold.

 

[Penny]

I think the types of interesting characters change as we grow older.
When I was a kid I really enjoyed characters who found out they were different from normal people, characters learning how everything worked for the first time. Because it related to my own experiences.

Now older and wiser I tend to prefer characters who are a little worn, have a few life experiences, get knocked down but keep on kicking.

I think there is a lot to be said for the explorer as I would call it for a character hook. someone who experiences things at a pace with the reader can be incredibly engaging especially for younger audiences.

 

[Martin Gill]

And I think the key part here is it its something she did.

I think this is part of it, but I've been thinking about this in the context of superheroes recently, having just watched Season 4 of Gotham and I'm re-reading Arkham Asylum, then watching the Avengers Infinity War trailer and thinking, yawn. I'm sure some people love them, but I find the Marvel movie bad guys dull, dull, dull. They all look the same (big, blue CGI dudes) and they are mostly in-human - robots, aliens, whatever. Whereas the immortal Batman baddies - Joker, Penguin, Catwoman, etc - are all humans, driven by human desires, so in part you can relate to them and understand what makes them mad, what makes them tick. I can't relate to Ultron, Thanos, etc in the same way as I can to poor Oswald Copplepot in Gotham, deformed, beaten down, betrayed and when he manages to grab power, he just can't keep it under control.

Each of the Batman baddies has their traits that make them visually and stylistically interesting and quirky, but for me, they also have an emotional resonance that I can empathise with.

So is that what Sonia's trumpet is all about? It's not the trumpet, its the fact that she's striving to learn to play, and people can empathise with that, so they want her to succeed?

 

[The Big Peat]

I think this is part of it, but I've been thinking about this in the context of superheroes recently, having just watched Season 4 of Gotham and I'm re-reading Arkham Asylum, then watching the Avengers Infinity War trailer and thinking, yawn. I'm sure some people love them, but I find the Marvel movie bad guys dull, dull, dull. They all look the same (big, blue CGI dudes) and they are mostly in-human - robots, aliens, whatever. Whereas the immortal Batman baddies - Joker, Penguin, Catwoman, etc - are all humans, driven by human desires, so in part you can relate to them and understand what makes them mad, what makes them tick. I can't relate to Ultron, Thanos, etc in the same way as I can to poor Oswald Copplepot in Gotham, deformed, beaten down, betrayed and when he manages to grab power, he just can't keep it under control.

Each of the Batman baddies has their traits that make them visually and stylistically interesting and quirky, but for me, they also have an emotional resonance that I can empathise with.

So is that what Sonia's trumpet is all about? It's not the trumpet, its the fact that she's striving to learn to play, and people can empathise with that, so they want her to succeed?

Off the top of my head, but the Avengers' villains are probably dull because Avengers' movies focus on the dynamics of the group, which means the external threat can't take up too much space, whereas Batman movies focus on the dynamic between hero and villain. Could be wrong - I just made that theory up - but it sounds good, right?

But all the traits, all the emotional resonance... thinking about them is important (and I also think it's good to pick ones that contrast with the MC) - it's how they live them that provide the impact. Ultron doesn't live any nuance; they just threaten and destroy.

Which is - without knowing sfa about Sonia - that example works. She's living her trait.

Helps that she's an underdog too.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

And I think the key part here is it its something she did.

For me that's exactly what it is. It's about how they interact with the world I've created and the other people in it. It's why for me it's more important to know how they dress, what car they drive, how they decorate their home, what pets they have etc - all those things naturally give them quirks and faults and issues. I've got one character whose sister-in-law designed a perfect black and silver bachelor pad for him, but he's added tacky souveniers like a Blackpool ashtray and a donkey from Spain and his gran's pottery dogs. He spends most nights, after a few beers and a pizza, sparked out on the sofa with his cats Dempsey, Makepeace and Tripod. The first two are are pedigree expensive cars but he found the three-legged Tripod as a young copper, and kept him when he couldn't find his home. He wears stripy designer socks but they have a hole in them and he plays with it with his big toe.

Everything tells us something about him without me having to tell the audience what his quirks are.

 

[Shorewalker]

I think this is part of it, but I've been thinking about this in the context of superheroes recently, having just watched Season 4 of Gotham and I'm re-reading Arkham Asylum, then watching the Avengers Infinity War trailer and thinking, yawn. I'm sure some people love them, but I find the Marvel movie bad guys dull, dull, dull. They all look the same (big, blue CGI dudes) and they are mostly in-human - robots, aliens, whatever. Whereas the immortal Batman baddies - Joker, Penguin, Catwoman, etc - are all humans, driven by human desires, so in part you can relate to them and understand what makes them mad, what makes them tick. I can't relate to Ultron, Thanos, etc in the same way as I can to poor Oswald Copplepot in Gotham, deformed, beaten down, betrayed and when he manages to grab power, he just can't keep it under control.

Each of the Batman baddies has their traits that make them visually and stylistically interesting and quirky, but for me, they also have an emotional resonance that I can empathise with.

So is that what Sonia's trumpet is all about? It's not the trumpet, its the fact that she's striving to learn to play, and people can empathise with that, so they want her to succeed?

I have to respectfully disagree with this. The majority of the Marvel villains have actually been regular guys, some of whom may have gained some sort of power/upgrade. The latest effort used Klaue and Killmonger. All the Iron man films used human villains. The Spider-Man films use human villains. Ant-Man used a human villain.

The ones that don't tend to be space operas...GotG, Thor

And let's face it, the most engaging, entertaining villain of the lot...Loki...is anything BUT human, but is actually very easy to relate to.

 

[Martin Gill]

Ironically I find Loki the most human of the lot, but maybe thats because I like Viking myth and assign added depth to the character based on other things I've read. Plus they've basically turned him into more of an anti-hero than a full on evil bad guy now.

I'll give you Spiderman, but genrally I'm not into Spiderman so I forgot about that. I've enjoyed the Netflix adaptations as Kingpin and Killgrave both worked for me. So did the Punisher in Daredevil as a kind of almost-villain. But there seem to have been a rash of Superhero movies where the baddies are turned into either purple/blue things or faceless minions of evil, to the point where I found them interchangable. X-Men Future Past, GotG, the Avengers movies, Ares in Wonder Woman (I had to gogle his name #forgettable), Justice League. Like being an invincible god-like entity is in some way scary. Its not, its just facelessly dull. Some of this is visual design, but much of it is backstory and motivation.

X-Men is a good example. I liked Stryker because he's driven. As is Magneto. They want something which isn't "destroy all humans". They're driven by a need to stamp their twisted view of the world on people, but you can empathise (particulally with Magneto) with why he thinks and believes what he does. You question his methods, but not his underlying reason.

Game of Thrones. Cercie (sp?) is awesome. The White Walker king is a nice piece of CGI, but he's pretty dull. Destroy all humans. He's an exestential threat to bind the protagonists together, but he's not nuanced in any way. Cercie has human motivations, she crosses a LOT of moral lines, and that for me makes her interesting. You can look at most of her choices and think, OK, I understand why you did that. You are wrong, but I get it.

Walking Dead. The zombies are dull. Neegan is interesting. He wants something. Much like Magneto, he wants to stamp his view of the world on people because he believes he's right.

 

[Martin Gill]

This is actually proving very helpful for me to think through bad guy characters and apply what I've just said to my own work

 

[Shorewalker]

This is actually proving very helpful for me to think through bad guy characters and apply what I've just said to my own work

Yup. Rather worrying, isn't it?

 

[Martin Gill]

Late to the party but I watched Black Panther this morning. I loved the villains. They were human, relatable and wanted something more subtle than “destroy/enslave all humans”. Ironically I found the most shallow character to be Black Panther. He didn’t seem to really want much. He loves his family and misses his dad, but they skim over the “am I good enough to be as good a king as my father” thread. He faces physical threats, but faces no moral decisions to wrestle with. He fights “evil”, it he’s locked and loaded with super serum and. Super suit, so he’s not really in much jeopardy. His one main existential crisis is should Wakanda offer aid to other countries, but again that decision is made with zero angst.

So the more I read and analyse, I’m drawn to the fact that characters, both antagonists and protagonists, need to want something really badly, and it has to be something the reader can relate to. Not want, but they need to emphasise on some level why the character wants that thing, no matter how damaging it may be to themselves or others.