Dimitra Doukas
The Research Paper
An Analytical Examination at the Construct of a Character
in Relation to a Successful Fictional Narrative
Ever since consciousness touched the very earliest homo-sapiens, human beings have
been telling stories. Whether they drew them upon cave walls, or in their current shape, burn
them on silicone, humans have a universal need to share their consciousness. Civilizations have
grown and fallen, technologies have advanced exponentially, and yet, the need to tell stories has
never left the human race. At the heart of these stories are realistic, relatable characters. To be
able to create tangible characters within the realm of dramatic fiction is subtle and difficult, but
can be done by delving into the background of their physiological, sociological and
psychological makeup.
The process of creating a character can be divided up into five main categories; first,
there must be a premise to a story, which will dictate what type of characters populate its world;
second, their physiology, which will provide a “stereotype” of a character with which to work
from. Third, “emotional manifestations of physicality” will come into play, which is
understanding how a character comes to view themselves and how they will be viewed by the
audience. This brings with it two character types, the “underdog” and the “projection.” Fourth
comes psychology and sociology, the why of how the character is whom he is. Finally, the last
important step in creating a realistic character, is accepting that they can change, and throughout
the plot of the story, will come to be shaped by his experiences, and grow from them.
Before any character work is done, however, the premise of a story must be established
and developed. The premise of a narrative should be what the writer is looking to convey to the
audience by the end of its run. As Lejos Egri writes, “no idea, and no situation, was ever strong
enough to carry you through to its logical conclusion without a clear-cut premise… You must
have a premise- a premise which will lead you unmistakably to the goal your play [novel, movie]
hopes to reach (Egri, 6).” The premise can be looked as the interwoven thread that runs
throughout a successful piece of literature, binding together all its characters, its setting, its plot
and subplots. A good example of a notable premise is Romeo &Juliet, by William Shakespeare.
Its premise is that “great love defies even death (Egri, 8).” No matter what happens between the
Capulets' and the Montagues'- be it the constant state of warfare between both houses, Tybalt’s
murder of Mercutio, or Romeo’s revenge upon Tybalt- the two star cross’d lovers still love each
other, and are willing to die, rather than live without each other. Shakespeare, in writing this
play, knew his premise, and stayed true to it- he also knew which characters to create that would
be best suited to fulfill his premise.
The selection of characters best suited to fulfill the premise of the story is the next stage
of premise development. Shakespeare did this perfectly in Romeo & Juliet- both are slightly
hopeless romantics; Romeo, scorned by unrequited love before, gives his all to Juliet, and Juliet,
who has never been in love before, falls for Romeo (and as with all first loves), believes it will
last forever. In short, Shakespeare created two of the best suited characters to fulfill his premisetwo young, irrational, hopelessly in love people. Following this outline, a story should have a
clearly developed premise, which will inspire the types of characters that are best designed to
follow through on this to completion.
After a premise has been established, and there is an idea behind what type of characters
would be the best suited to perform the premise, the foundation for character work can be laid by
starting with a “stereotype.” Starting with this, it will create a thin outline of what the character
should be like. If, for example, the premise of a story is “growing up in rural America leads to
hardships,” and it is set in a rural setting, a solid character type could be “a farmer,” or “a smalltown girl.” It would make no sense if the stereotype of a character was “a big-shot, big-city
lawyer.” The big-city lawyer would have no justification for leading the story along its premisehe does not belong in the country, so there would be no reason to have him be the narrator,
unless the writer truly wanted his point of view to be shown- but that would derail the old
premise and necessitate the creation of a new one. If however, the old premise was kept as it is,
and suitable “stereotypes” were found (the farmer, etc.) to fulfill that premise, the next stage in
character development, physiology, can come into play.
The “stereotype” of a character does not define them. It is merely a starting point for the
writer to expand upon when thinking of what makes a character themselves. “Age, sex,
height/weight, color of hair, skin, eyes, posture, appearance, defects, heredity (Egri, 36),” all of
these attributes should be given to a character. The outward appearance of a character will define
them, as well as give the audience (of the novel, movie), an idea of how to visualize them. The
character’s attributes should also fit into the premise of the story. Continuing with the example
premise aforementioned, if the “stereotype” of a character is “a farmer,” the way he looks should
reflect that stereotype- sun-burnt after hours working outside, well-built from physical labor,
calluses on his hands, maybe dirt underneath his nails. Although making assumptions about
people is unjustifiable, the audience needs to believe that the person they are reading about,
watching on the screen is, in fact, a farmer- his physicality needs to be something they can see as
being a true farmer. The audience needs to feel like this character belongs on this farm; having
the character look like a farmer (as opposed to looking like a man who does not work and spends
most of his time inside, giving him a pallid, softer appearance), will have the audience believing
in the character far more readily.
The way a character looks will have a dual effect; first it will give the character a sense of
being, and affect how they perceive the world. The second effect will be influencing how the
audience perceives them and their way of looking at the world. Their physicality will give rise to
“emotional manifestations” of the type of person they are. “Our physical make-up,” Egri writes,
“certainly colors our outlook on life. It influences us endlessly, helping make us tolerant, defiant,
humble, or arrogant. It affects our mental development, serves as a basis for inferiority and
superiority complexes. It is the most obvious of man’s first set of dimensions (Egri, 33).” Take
for example, Dev Patel’s character, Jamal, in Slumdog Millionaire. He is tall and thin, with
awkward posture and looks like he could be a teenager even though he is a bit older. The
audience will look at him and make assumptions based on his physical appearance- he doesn’t
look strong, he looks harmless, he doesn’t look mean, he looks vulnerable, etc. Based on his
physical appearance, Jamal has already been categorized into a box by the audience- Jamal, as a
character, probably thinks the same thing about himself because that is the way he looks- he is
humble, he is truthful, and he looks it. A character’s appearance will formulate peoples’
expectations of him- as well as make him more relatable, especially if the audience can see
something of themselves in the character.
In creating a character, there are two basic types of physical characteristics to be aware
of; an “underdog,” physicality, and a “projection” physicality. An “underdog” character is
someone outside the “norm” of society, someone who does not readily fit into a certain
backdrop. They can be ostracized for being different; feeling alone within a family, their
background, their village, their city. Whether this separation is due to their physical features or
emotionally linked, the audience can easily relate to this, as everyone has had feelings of
inadequacy at certain times in their life. The “projection” character can be seen as the anti-thesis
of the “underdog.” Whatever it is that society wants most of all (fame, strength, beauty, money,
power), the “projection” character will have. The audience, upon encountering such a character,
will relate to them because they see the qualities they want projected into this character. An
“underdog” character may also move up in society, displaying leadership, strength, cunning, etc,
and eventually become a “projection.” There are many novels and movies that deal with an
“underdog” coming into his own and progressing into a “projection;” J.D. Salinger’s The
Catcher in the Rye is a great example of this.
Holden Caulfield, the main character, feels alienated from the rest of the world because
of the views he holds. His “underdog” qualities are emotionally linked. Unable to bear the
responsibility of maturity and becoming an adult, he rebels against the “normal” facets of society
(school, teachers, friends, family), and instead ingrains himself into the dark underbelly of New
York City one winter. The “projection” character in the novel is the world at large that Holden
rejects; the adult world, in his words, is “conformist.” To others, it is a world of stability, with
personal and economic freedom (a definite “projection” quality.) Holden eventually realizes that
he must grow up and become a part of his society, and so willingly gets better; from the
“underdog,” he becomes a “projection,” willing to move ahead and confront his fears.
A character must also be defined by their sociology and psychology. Egri gives a writer a
few good points to touch on when developing a character’s background; he lists “class,
occupation, education, home life, religion, nationality, place in community, political affiliations,
amusements, hobbies, sex life, moral standards, personal premise, ambition, frustrations,
disappointments, temperament, attitude toward life, complexes, abilities, and qualities (Egri,
37),” as things to think about when developing characters. It is true that two different people will
react differently in the same situation, and their psychology will determine just what they do. Say
that there are two women, both walking down a dark street at night. The first woman is attacked
by a mugger, and she starts to cry and tries to run away. The second woman is attacked and she
is afraid, but chooses to remain and fight the mugger. Why did the first woman run while the
second woman chose to fight? Perhaps the first woman had a bad experience in her life, where
she learned that running away was the best option out of that situation. Perhaps the second
woman learned that fighting, and learning to defend herself was better than trying to run.
Whatever the reason these characters did what they did, they were influenced by their past
experiences, by their interests, in short, by their psychological make-up.
At this stage of character development, the writer has built quite an expansive
background to the character. Confident in their understanding of who their character is, the writer
will plow ahead into scripting a story without further ado or thought. And yet, this is where many
of the pitfalls in writing lay. Say, for example, there is a character that is a “projection” and is
going to be classified as the antagonist (“the bad guy.”) First pitfall to avoid- that “projection”
character should have a few tweaks of “underdog” qualities in him, because there is no realistic
human being who is always perfect, as there is no person who is wholly pathetic. The second
pitfall can be avoided by remembering that no person is entirely bad or entirely good at any point
in their life; human beings share a common humanity; everyone feels, thinks, breathes, cries,
mourns, hates, and loves. Even the very worst person possesses a scrap of compassion
underneath their tough exterior; as mirror images of human beings, the characters in novels and
movies must be drawn in the same vein.
The final conclusion in character development is to take all the character construct work
and throw it away. Just as the past has influenced the character up until the start of the novel or
movie, everything beyond that point will change them just as radically. The experiences that the
character is going through as the story progresses will alter their future. If a story is done well,
the character will always be affected by the end, will always go through change- and if they
succeed in their quest or fail miserably, well, that depends on the premise.