fantasyforbeginners

[fantasyforbeginners]

So something that I and probably lots of other people have issues with is repeatedly trying to improve certain aspects of a story. Personally, I struggle with my characters. I know that perfect is the enemy of good, but trying to remember that kind of led to a question I hadn’t quite considered: what *does* make a character Good/make them pass the threshold from serviceable to well-done? I know this sort of thing is subjective to a degree, but are there some basic principles to keep in mind?

Ooh, that's a good one. Like you identified, it is inherently subjective. Some of my favourite characters I'd say are exceedingly well developed feel subpar to other people, or vice versa. That said, a few things:

Keep in mind your character's role, which is to say: a side character doesn't need to be and/or likely won't warrant being as well developed as a main character. That's not to say you can't develop them at all, but a side character who's there to exposit things for 1-2 chapters doesn't need the kind of interiority a reoccurring side character does, etc. The former will probably be more useful from a plot/worldbuilding standpoint than from a personality/emotional one. (A minor side character can do all four, to be clear, but if every minor side character is like that, it can get a bit overwhelming.)

That said, some of my favourite pieces of fiction are my favourite precisely they developed their side characters in ways they didn't have to but chose to, instead, so here's my personal shortcuts:

How Important the character is to a story determines how many Things they have going on. I usually scaffold my stories like this:

Main character: at least 3 things going on in one book, maybe 5 depending on length/complexity

Side main character: 1-2 things going on

Side character: 1 thing going on

For example, in my novel out next year (aaah) my main character has roughly 3-4 things going on, although some are interconnected. They are as follows:

The loss/lack of her powers

Her subsequent one sided rivalry with one of her friends

Her relationship with her sister (that doesn't actually have anything to do with her powers at all)

Secret 4th thing

Her sister is one of my side-main characters (technically tritagonist, but it's a singular POV book, so...) has 2 things going on. They are as follows:

How current events are bringing her angsty backstory the forefront

Her relationship with her sister (+ their mutual friend)

There are other things, of course. Sister character is characterized as religious and she doesn't like the powers she has, although those are consistent character traits/beats that aren't resolved within this first book.

Lastly, we have a side character who is the main protag's mentor. She's integrated into the world, but largely only has one thing going on, which is:

Being main protag's mentor

She still has, you know, Concern and Feelings about whether she's doing a good job, and whether main protag is Ready, etc etc. for what's ahead, but that is her primary purpose in the scene(s) that she's in.

However, that's like. what a character has going on, not who is that character IS, y'know? A mentor or protag or sister can be any various of ways and have any number of personalities, and depth usually gets tucked under "how well is your character's personality/challenges explored or explained in a text," so let's look at that next.

Simply put, the easiest way to create depth is to create contrast.

Humans are drawn to and immensely enjoy contrast. This is why opposites attract is such a popular relationship pairing, or why comedy duos are often the 'straight man' vs the more outrageous character. On a certain level, this comes down to (the appearance of) depth being the result of a surprise. As stated, me going in with expectations that a work wouldn't develop a character, only to be pleasantly surprised that they did, greatly elevated the work in my eyes.

The "jerk with a heart of gold" trope is popular, after all, because it's a contrast: the character's external presentation masks the opposite of that presentation underneath. Implicitly, this attraction to contrasts (or depth) probably has something to do with humans enjoying acknowledgement that we're complicated, not always honest, or don't always present everything we think/feel at all times. While there's amatanormative reasons people enjoy the Chase of a relationship in fiction > the couple actually being together on a certain level, I think a lot of it has to do with enjoying a bigger gap between "what the character feels" and "what the character expresses," which is then presumably reduced when the characters get together and can therefore be more Honest with each other.

From a writing standpoint, this means you can create that Gap yourself with Intention. One of my characters has terrible self esteem, but also believes that she deserves much better than she's received; this means that she can be very hopeful and very indignant on her own behalf, and also willing to be a world-class complainer. It makes her more interesting, I think, than being a character who just thinks they're awful, or just thinks they're amazing (and even then, most characters with overt self-esteem end up masking a secret lack of, tbh). It also means her two core desires — to prove herself as something more than what she is, and to prove she's good enough as is — are at war with each other, creating (what I hope is) a compelling character narrative of seeing what sides are going to win out and/or create conflict.

Basically: a character with a hobby or trait that is the Opposite from what you'd expect from them is a good way to engineer contrast and/or make audiences feel like more depth is there in a short time frame. A big burly man that's secretly sweet deep down is in like 1,000 things, but the contrast between appearance vs personality (ex: a big biker guy who also unashamedly does/loves ballet) is going to Stick in a reader's mind more than characters who are just one thing or the other.

Not all characters need a ton of contrast (paragons, for example, can be very effective while being very straightforward) but it's a very good rule of thumb for creating serviceable to Good to Great characters reliably, I think.

Other fun bonus things:

Distinctive appearances and/or associations. One of the reasons I think Six of Crows is so successful, for ex, is because the main characters all have their unique thing (Kaz is always in a long black coat with his gloves and crow-headed cane, Inej as her blade and her knives, Jesper is flashier with his favourite guns) which helps characterize them and makes them stand out. This can be tricky in non-visual media to get across, but extremely effective.

Strong personalities. That's not to say you can't have a quiet or mild-mannered character, but that getting us to very quickly understand the external presentation of your character can be useful. It lets you quickly establish a foundation that you can start complicating or chipping away at with those contrasts.

The lie shouldn't just be a lie. Often times you'll get told to have there be a Lie your character believes about themselves, the world, others. By the end of the story, they unlearn this lie and move forward. However, I find I yield richer characterization and arcs when the Lie my character believes isn't entirely a lie: maybe they are also, but not just, the problem; maybe the world is a terrible, selfish place in addition to being a good one, sometimes, etc. I find that this, for example, tends to lend itself better to...

Challenging your characters. A couple of things I asked myself when sitting down to plot/plan my book series was "what does my character want and what are they willing, or not willing, to justify to get it?" as well as "what would break them the most?" That doesn't mean you have to Do those things to them, or that they all have to be willing to justify terrible things (sometimes a character who will not no matter the cost can be even more interesting) but that it's useful to know what they're scared of, what they care most about, what they're overcompensating for, etc.

And that's all I got really! At least for now / without more specifics, but feel free to send those in <3

[fantasyforbeginners]

I've already said that my number one piece of writing advice is to read.

But my number two piece of advice is this: be deliberate.

Honestly this would fix so many pieces of bad writing advice. Don't forbid people from doing something, tell them to be conscious and deliberate about it. This could help stop people from falling into common mistakes without limiting their creativity. Black and white imperatives may stop a few annoying beginner habits, but ultimately they will restrict artistic expression.

Instead of "don't use epithets": "Know the effect epithets have and be deliberate about using them." Because yes, beginners often misuse them, but they can be useful when a character's name isn't known or when you want to reduce them to a particular trait they have.

Instead of "don't use 'said'" or "just use 'said'": "Be deliberate about your use of dialogue tags." Because sometimes you'll want "said" which fades into the background nicely, but sometimes you will need a more descriptive alternative to convey what a character is doing.

Instead of "don't use passive voice": "Be deliberate about when you use passive voice." Because using it when it's not needed can detract from your writing, but sometimes it can be useful to change the emphasis of a sentence or to portray a particular state of mind.

Instead of blindly following or ignorantly neglecting the rules of writing, familiarize yourself with them and their consequences so you can choose when and if breaking them would serve what you're trying to get across.

Your writing is yours. Take control of it.

It probably sounds like I'm preaching to the choir here because most of my mutuals are already great writers. But I'm hoping this will make it to the right people.

[fantasyforbeginners]

What does it mean for something to be structurally well written but bad character-wise, plot-wise, or in execution? In theory, it seems similar to the “there’s no bad ideas, just bad execution” thing, but people seem to use it in a different way. In particular, I’m not sure how the execution can be different from how good the characters or plot is-it sounds like an umbrella term to me, but I think I maybe be missing a little bit of context.

I think it varies so much because they are all different things but can so closely overlap (I remember in one of my narrative theory courses we talked about the difference between events, sequence, and plot like ad nauseam... and all of it has basically left my brain). A lot of it also comes down to what is considered 'good' for each of them, which can vary wildly and be very subjective. So this is, at least, how I think about them!

» Structure: the overall themes and messaging of the story, usage of foils and parallels, for ex. This is like, Concepts rather than execution. The ability to decipher the intention of a thing (i.e. this character arc is about learning to trust) even if it's not well executed, etc.

» Plot: the events of the story. Character A went to Place B, etc. Ideally, the plot will help enhance the structure (a character who learns to trust will have to confront a person who betrayed them at Place B, etc) and stakes/execution etc.

» Characters: the personal manifestations used to tell the story. They can be used as tools (pieces of theme) which can be separate entirely from their characterization (personality, interiority; which can take precedence over their tool-ness). They are typically vessels of likability or intrigue to make us want to care about the other shit (worldbuilding, plot, etc) if the story is character driven > premise or plot driven.

» Execution: how all of these things, arguably, are brought together and/or disparate from one another. For example, while Sleeping Beauty and Snow White have structure and plot similarities — a beautiful sleeping maiden is awoken from her cursed 'death' with a kiss from a prince — but how they get there is wildly different; Snow White's curse is very sudden, Aurora faces a slow build of dread because you always know it's coming, even if she doesn't. Snow White is accordingly simpler as a story, whereas Sleeping Beauty engages (lightly at least) with fate as a theme.

For a story of how all these elements can merge (nor merge) together, I'm going to talk about Frozen because I think it's a specifically really good example to use to break down all of the above:

Structurally:

Frozen is about sisters, and specifically the reconciliation of the sisters. There are themes of family and the importance of being open with others in your life; Hans provides a subtheme of why you shouldn't rush in to just trusting anybody. (We'll get to him later, believe me.) For Anna, she's rewarded for her determination and love, and doesn't really change as a person throughout the movie; Elsa, comparatively, does, learning to let go of her fear surrounding her powers and how to embrace them (scaffolded under learning to let herself be loved). This provides a subtheme of people doing bad/dangerous things out of fear.

Plot:

Sisters fight. Elsa runs away to avoid (not feel/deal) with her problems and creates winter out of fear. Anna pursues her, is injured, comes back, is betrayed by Hans. Elsa is likewise dragged back to their kingdom. Hans almost kills both of them, Anna saves her sister even if that means sacrificing herself, and that ends up saving her. Elsa gains a better understanding of her powers out of it and ends the winter. Happy ending.

Characters:

If the plot demands for Anna to go after her sister into the cold, then Anna must be a determined character. If Elsa's plotline requires her to try and hide her powers, then she must be a more secretive character. The add ons to make them endearing, tbh, is that Anna is plucky and out of her element (highlighting her determination and love), and Elsa is anxious (whereas another character could've been secretive and resentful) because she doesn't want to hurt anyone, which keeps her sympathetic even as the harm of her powers escalate.

Execution:

So now that we have all these factors understood, how does the movie actually apply all of them? Frozen is very much a movie that checks off all its structural boxes — the story is indeed about trust and love and fear (themes), and the sisters do reconcile after a magically created divide — but the execution falters routinely when it comes to Character Agency and Consistency, particularly for Elsa and Hans, respectively. This also hampers its themes and overall story execution.

For example, the true monarch fleeing the kingdom out of fear, leaving it in disarray, initially ignoring the person who came to bring them back and fix the problem, only to eventually make things right and reclaim the throne is also the Plot Structure of The Lion King. However, whereas Simba makes the choice go home and face Scar — even when he still believes himself responsible for his father's death, even when he doesn't know if things are going to work out — Elsa is dragged back against her will. She then escapes and attempts to leave, placing even Anna's care in Hans' hands. Elsa has effectively no agency post-Let It Go, and the story never seems super bothered by this, or the way she only unlearns her primary character flaw (avoidance and running away) after everything else has already been comparatively fixed (Anna has saved her and has thawed). And because her agency is nuked, her character arc also feels really underdeveloped. She has basically 3 stages (childhood powers are good, childhood powers are bad for 90% of the movie (minus let it go), childhood powers are good again) with very little in between the last two stages, which is what should arguably get the most focus.

Hans is also a character who gets a major short end of the stick (and takes both the girls down with him) because of his lack of character consistency. It's more than "oh he's a twist villain, so you can't see it coming"—it's that his actions at the Ice Palace make zero sense if he wants the throne.

The Duke has one of his guys lined up to take the shot and kill Elsa, which Hans already defaults to being necessary to end the winter like 10 minutes later; he's already in charge of Arendelle with Anna MIA and he was planning on staging an accident for Elsa after the wedding to Anna, anyway; and here, he can have someone else kill the queen with witnesses and zero involvement for him. He has multiple reasons to want her dead, and none to actually want her alive, but he... spares her anyway, for some reason? Because the plot needs her alive, so they have him shot the arrow upwards toward the chandelier to Maybe take her out (and him checking it out is animated) which is also dumb, because if it was on purpose that'd make him more responsible for her death (which he seemingly wanted anyway in that scene!!) than just letting the guy take the shot.

So Hans doesn't really make sense as a twist villain, and I'd also argue him being one completely negates a lot of Anna's agency as well. Rather than realizing for herself which man suits her better or who she trusts more, she's hung utterly out to dry and then has Olaf point it out to her. Even though your partner doesn't actually have to be Evil to be Not Right for you, and that's a message I wish we saw a lot more in kids media.

However, Frozen is also an exceedingly easy move to fix in a variety of ways.

When writing a story, we all have various options to get us to the same outcome — say, a character needs to realize they have courage, and we know we want a haunted castle involved — so these are the Frozen Fix-It situations, I think.

Elsa escapes the prison, but decides to stay in Arendelle to try and find Anna in the storm and solve their problems together, rather than attempting to actively flee again. This is the simplest fix and gives her more agency (though it doesn't really fix Hans and Anna's situation: maybe Elsa redirects the arrow herself at the Ice Palace, and he doesn't really do anything).

My personal favourite: Hans is the antagonist, but he's not a Villain. He genuinely cares about Anna and thinks he's in love with her; he kisses her and it doesn't work. He thinks that in order to save Anna and the kingdom, he has to kill Elsa, and goes to do so with immense regret/remorse. Anna is pissed at him post her de-thawing, but Elsa steps in, and reminds her that people do terrible things when they're scared (stronger theming). Elsa forgives/pardons Hans, but it's clear she's forgiving herself too (agency). Hans and Anna realize that while they care about each other, they're not that well suited, and she picks (rather than being handed) Kristoff.

Option 2 the one that keeps the most of the movie's plot structure while also changing the most, comparatively, and while I'd still have gripes with it (looking at the trolls; looking at Elsa's agency, etc) it's kind of the movie I'll always wish Frozen would've been if they'd just let it be a bit more complex and consistent.

So Frozen, as is, is a movie with a decent plot and good characters, but weaker theming and poorer execution: it's a fun movie, but a structurally broken one, to me. Conversely, there can be stories like The Lion King that have a much stronger structure, but maybe the characters aren't as compelling or some feel underdeveloped, etc. The overall shape of the story is strong, but the ins and outs and scene by scene execution is iffier.

Hope this helps and if you have any more questions or specific examples you'd like to send in, absolutely feel free!

[fantasyforbeginners]

One of my favourite questions for figuring out a character’s motivations is which qualities they most fear being assigned to them. Are they afraid (consciously or unconsciously) of being seen as stupid? Ungrateful? Weak? Incompetent? Lazy? Cowardly? Intimidating? Like they actually care? etc.

It’s such a fun way to explore into who they are, why they do what they do, what they don’t do out of fear, and how they might be affected by the events of the story. And I love when characters have negative motivations—trying to avoid something (in this case, being seen a particular way) as much as they’re trying to achieve a goal.

[fantasyforbeginners]

Is there a way to write a compelling character that lived a happy life with practically zero trauma before the story starts and/or a character that’s emotionally mature but doesn’t lean into stuff like therapy speak? I mean, I love giving characters messed up backstories and godawful coping mechanisms, but I just think it’d be good for me to learn how to create ones without those.

Absolutely! One of my (main-ish) characters actually fits into both the categories you're discussing (his name is Bill and I love him a lot) so I'll use him as an example while also offering some others (Optimus Prime from Transformers/Transformers: Prime tv show in particular; Terry from The Dragon Prince; Jack Dawson from Titanic).

First, let's slow down and define therapy speak so even if I may be missing stuff / what you're thinking of, you can at least understand the page I'm currently on and better discern what may or may not be helpful to you if I get anything wrong! Therapy speak can mean many things, but usually refers to vague language pulling from therapy and/or professional psychology jargon. The main reason this can be off-putting is because 1) it can sound very informal and/or 2) depending on your setting can feel way too modern or cause breaks in immersion. (This was something I had to think a lot about in building a fantasy world where characters do, indeed, go to therapy, and mostly required thinking about how and why mental health services would've been formed, their own shortcomings and phrasings, etc).

So one good initial way to avoid therapy speak: modern edition might be to lean into "what would therapy speak: this fantasy world edition" fall under.

However: usually therapy speak can make a character feel less emotionally mature, because vaguer emotions and statements are often times less descriptive, tangible, and vulnerable than more genuine expressions that can be clear(er) if less formal or practised sounding.

So how do you indicate that 1) a character is emotionally mature while 2) avoiding therapy speak? There can be a few ways I think, surrounding characterization. A good example of a decently wise character who often counsels others with sound advice presented in a humourous / untraditional way is Jason from The Good Place (lots of clips available online).

My character Bill is also played more straight / with a more serious tone, so I'm going to talk about him a bit as well. He's the group mediator / peacemaker while not being non-confrontational, was raised with a stable mother figure his whole life, and he loves his friends and loves taking care of his friends. That doesn't mean he doesn't have his own flaws, pitfalls, or subplots (he does) but he doesn't have nearly the same amount of complexes or conflicts as well.

What he offers, I find, is perspective and goodwill. Another emotionally mature character could offer levelheadedness (Optimus) or optimism (Terry) and it's not as though Bill doesn't have those things, but most of the time when he's trying to diffuse conflict he emphasizes that 1) his friends are still all on the same team, working with and not against each other; and 2) to hear each other out and consider other perspectives:

Ally opened her mouth, unsure of who she’d yell at first. “You—” “Ally, you have every right to be upset,” Bill said. He placed a hand on her and Jamie’s shoulders, looking at Flames. His tone, gentle yet firm, seemed to make all of them simmer down. “But Jamie was doing what she thought was right and Flames isn’t responsible for the choices someone else made surrounding her request. She didn’t know.”

The reason I think (or hope) this sounds more real is because it's rooted in characterization, is somewhat reasonable for a regulated 15 year old kid to say, and isn't catching all the nuances, just most of them. He's not explaining their trauma back to them or anything, but is aware that each of them has trauma and each other's best interests at heart.

But for conversations where characters do kind of explain another character's emotions at them or directly counsel them, well... behold! Another example slightly tailored for spoilers for my book lol:

“You’re strong,” [Redacted] said. “You’re brave. You’re resilient. You never give up.” [Redacted]’s hands curled into fists. “I fail one time and I fall apart. You fail all the time.”  “Gee, thanks.” But there was no bite in it this time.

Both of them talk like real people would, particularly in not always phrasing things the right or perfect way. What's meant to be only a compliment or pep talk doesn't quite get there, there's some of Redacted's own emotions or viewpoint bleeding in (disappointment in themselves, etc), some sarcasm without malice, etc.

TLDR; I think a lot of it comes down to a few simple things:

Your character's gauging of another person's emotional state, or how they phrase their understanding of it, is likely not going to be perfect or dead on; real people miss things or mess them up, even just in small ways. Optimus is a great example since, while he's always ultimately Correct, sometimes he overlooks stuff (human customs) due to lack of knowledge and is always apologetic about it; it is very endearing and softly balances out him being infallible as a paragon

But if it is 100% then doing build up throughout to get there of why and how the character knows the other person (or phrasings) so well can be useful. This ties back into:

Using character voice and characterization to your greatest advantage. This can relate to age, backstory, previous experiences, etc.

Hope this was helpful! Feel free to send in any more asks about this (more specifics, etc) or any other potential road block!

[fantasyforbeginners]

How do you keep your characters consistent while also accounting for development and trauma? I’d always leaned on character profiles/questions to construct them, but I started running into issues when I realized I couldn’t tell what parts were the character’s actual Core, what about the character’s Core was supposed to change, and what was just an expression of those things.

This is a great question and also something I have a fair bit of background (luckily) in + experience writing! The bulk of this when discussing trauma is going to be a generalization accordingly, but researching specific kinds and/or mental illnesses (ptsd vs cptsd, did, etc). With that in mind, let's dive in:

So broadly speaking, there are two kinds of trauma:

Trauma that began in early childhood (that often reoccured, but not necessarily)

A traumatic event that took place in adulthood / formative years, but still when your sense of self was more comparatively developed

This isn't mutually exclusive, of course. I've known people where they have both and I've known people with the 2nd and not the 1st and vice versa, etc.

In many ways, trauma is a disruption of sense of self and identity (external, internal) because some sense of or appeal for safety was disrupted or violated. A character, therefore, who's experienced trauma since or in their childhood (even in a singular incident) is likely going to have a Core 'self' that is more heavily impacted by that trauma as compared to a character where it only happened like age 13 and up.

For example, a character who is very outgoing/cheerful throughout their life who then experiences a traumatic event in their 20s may become more withdrawn and cynical/angry. There could be insecurity and shame over who they've become and worry that people preferred the old them. The same character, as a result of the same event, could suppress the hell out of everything, employ toxic positivity, and take more risks with their personal safety to prove they're totally over it, right?, not less.

The Core, therefore, becomes a useful guiding tool for how a character with an identity formed independently of trauma will respond to whatever trauma(s) is introduced. If a character was already more openly emotional, maybe they're a crier; alternatively, maybe they stop visibly expressing emotions deep enough to Show a starker contrast. Both can be effective.

What can be trickier, I think, is when your character experienced trauma at a much younger age (0-10 or 12) and therefore it will have shaped their 'Core Self' much more.

I'll use my main character as an example. She experienced a traumatic event in her childhood around age 6; it left her feeling very helpless and to a degree literally powerless, as the abilities that saved her in that instance shut off/stopped working for her afterwards. This developed her personality in key ways:

Some general mistrust for adults/authority because if they couldn't protect her when it mattered, why should she blindly listen to them?

An intense of abandonment coupled with an emphasis on being self-sufficient / not needing help because receiving help is unreliable, isn't it?

A subsequent desire to prove herself and being more underhanded and resourceful (you never know what you're going to have to use to your advantage, i.e. her past abilities, compensation tools or weapons now that she doesn't have them) in order to get by

An immense fear of being powerless (helpless), which manifested as being more outwardly aggressive / wanting to come off as scarier than she is despite being a compassionate person at her core

However.... this is not the only way she could've responded to her trauma. She could've picked and then clung to a Safe Adult she trusted far too much but also resented for having her safety so precariously pinned on somebody else; she could've thrown herself into her training 110% to make herself actually Be Dangerous rather than just appearing dangerous, and be incredibly shut off from others.

What this allowed me to do, then, was to integrate a lot of her trauma into her personality by considering how she responded in particular and what traits this led to—comparing herself to and being resentful of others, her resourcefulness and independence, her mischievousness also sometimes being manipulative, her big heart and desire to belong—be competing and contradictory. It is worth noting, after all, that our biggest weaknesses are also our biggest strengths; a character trait is rarely strictly good or bad, but circumstantial. The way a character responds to trauma — hyper vigilance, for ex — can be both good and bad.

Some of this can be mitigated by grouping things into primary and secondary groupings, or by turning the circumstantial gears on. Post-trauma responses are usually about fear of losing control (of your safety, of your relationships, of yourself, etc) and can manifest in a lot of different ways. My main protagonist from above is claustrophobic, and this isn't really for any real reason within the text (symbolically, I think it works bc she hates feeling stuck/trapped or helpless). This was true before her traumatic event(s) and after. She's always been a resourceful clever little stinker (positive / neutral in circumstances) but when she feels threatened it can be outright lying and, as mentioned, underhanded methods to get what she wants (negative in certain circumstances).

I could've sworn I've talked about this upcoming thing before but I cannot find it to save my life so: sometimes it's really useful to pay attention to and listen to what your characters aren't telling you. If you have a character (or even characters) whose 'Core' and trauma are so interwoven it's hard to separate them... then maybe they're a character with a heavily impacted/traumatized Core who never got to develop outside of that. Maybe they're worried that they don't know who they are outside of the trauma or trauma responses. Maybe it's a part of their character arc.

That said: for characters where the traumatic events were later, and there was a distinguishable Before or After in their lives, it can be worth examining what central fear that trauma gave them. If it broke their trust in someone whereas before they were trusting, maybe they're more hypervigilant or defensive in their relationships; if it was their overall sense of safety, maybe they're sleep deprived and more snappish / quick to anger than they used to be.

That's all I kind of got for now without more specifics (feel free to send those in and/or any other questions on this topic or anything else)! Other posts you may be interested in are:

The difference between Character Maintenance and Character Development

Constructing Personalities

Constructing Character Arcs

[fantasyforbeginners]

20 Compelling Positive-Negative Trait Pairs

Here are 20 positive and negative trait pairs that can create compelling character dynamics in storytelling:

1. Bravery - Recklessness: A character is courageous in the face of danger but often takes unnecessary risks.

2. Intelligence - Arrogance: A character is exceptionally smart but looks down on others.

3. Compassion - Naivety: A character is deeply caring but easily deceived due to their trusting nature.

4. Determination - Stubbornness: A character is persistent in their goals but unwilling to adapt or compromise.

5. Charisma - Manipulativeness: A character is charming and persuasive but often uses these traits to exploit others.

6. Resourcefulness - Opportunism: A character is adept at finding solutions but is also quick to exploit situations for personal gain.

7. Loyalty - Blind Obedience: A character is fiercely loyal but follows orders without question, even when they're wrong.

8. Optimism - Denial: A character remains hopeful in difficult times but often ignores harsh realities.

9. Humor - Inappropriateness: A character lightens the mood with jokes but often crosses the line with their humor.

10. Generosity - Lack of Boundaries: A character is giving and selfless but often neglects their own needs and well-being.

11. Patience - Passivity: A character is calm and tolerant but sometimes fails to take action when needed.

12. Wisdom - Cynicism: A character has deep understanding and insight but is often pessimistic about the world.

13. Confidence - Overconfidence: A character believes in their abilities but sometimes underestimates challenges.

14. Honesty - Bluntness: A character is truthful and straightforward but often insensitive in their delivery.

15. Self-discipline - Rigidity: A character maintains strong control over their actions but is inflexible and resistant to change.

16. Adventurousness - Impulsiveness: A character loves exploring and trying new things but often acts without thinking.

17. Empathy - Overwhelm: A character deeply understands and feels others' emotions but can become overwhelmed by them.

18. Ambition - Ruthlessness: A character is driven to achieve great things but willing to do anything, even unethical, to succeed.

19. Resilience - Emotional Detachment: A character can endure hardships without breaking but often seems emotionally distant.

20. Strategic - Calculative: A character excels at planning and foresight but can be cold and overly pragmatic in their decisions.

These pairs create complex, multi-dimensional characters that can drive rich, dynamic storytelling.

---

+ If you find my content valuable, consider Support This Blog on Patreon!

[fantasyforbeginners]

I find it really interesting how you seem to kind of separate foils as its own thing, and I’m curious about how that works. For example, I know that Katara and Azula are definitely foils - both girls are prodigy benders, associated with blue, lost a mother, etc, but Katara’s compassionate, and Azula’s cruel. I like that contrast, but I never understood that’s contrast’s doing from a standpoint for the narrative as a whole, separate from say, plot or characterization.

So foils are built off two things: the similarities, like you listed, and the differences (Katara being the one to save Aang and Zuko whereas Azula inflicts violence; the compassion and cruelty, as mentioned). We also get into how Katara gives and believes in agency (i.e. her disagreements with Aang in the Avatar State) and disagreeing in a thoughtful manner (much like Aang: "no, Katara, you do have a choice") that contrasts with bloodbending — invasive control, fear and threats, etc — and which is Azula's mainstay: "All your life you've used fear to control people..." "Well what choice do I have?" Azula says that 'fear is the only reliable way' but that doubles as 'control is the only reliable way,' poor girl.

This all ties back into ATLA's thing of "is it your own destiny? Or is it a destiny someone else has tried to force on you?" vs "Aang's following his destiny his way / you have always followed your own path"

Katara's compassion reinforces as well in bringing down the divides between nations. She frees and befriends an Air Nomad; she reaches out to Earth Kingdom kids with understanding and aid (Haru, Jet); Katara symbolically unites the North and South Water Tribes; she and Aang reach out to Zuko&Iroh + the Fire Nation kids (the Headband, the Painted Lady), even though they're Fire Nation and their enemy. In Azula's worldview, there should be no connection or distinction: everything is either Fire (superior in every way) or not-Fire and an obstacle to remove or ignore.

A lot of the 1st and 3rd paragraphs though is implicit narrative subtext. ATLA never has a character say "balance can only be restored through all the Nations working together" even though the show Hinges on the very concept and reinforces it over and over again, with the White Lotus just being an older all-male version of the Gaang (at least one bender of each type sans air but Iroh honestly takes Aang's role; a sword master, etc).

So the contrast between the two girls helps create their characterization; their characterization contributes to their foil relationship; and that foils dynamic helps build ATLA's narrative and thematic messaging. It is plausible, after all, to have two characters who have parallels but don't quite achieve foil status (Mai and Yue, or Mai and Toph for example), and a show can have a strong narrative / characterization without really having any foils (Jurassic World: Camp Cretaceous is a good example).

Honestly my favourite foil dynamic of all time has to be Viren and Callum from The Dragon Prince because they are an immaculate villain-antihero-hero foils dynamic built throughout 7 seasons. The Dragon Prince uses foils so well it's kind of incredible, and I do think uses them in a more complex way than ATLA — Viren and Callum have narrative, thematic, and heavy characterization similarities, while also still maintaining contrasts — so if you want to learn more about them and how to do them well, I'd rec the show just for that (and its worldbuilding, and ethical dilemmas, and queer rep).

For a quick overview of what I mean while avoiding not too many spoilers:

Callum is Dragon Prince's core protagonist; Viren is its main antagonist (S1-S3) and then he has an atonement arc (S4-S6). They are both mages: Callum becomes a primal mage (neutral to positive magic system), and Viren is the High Mage of Katolis and practices primarily dark magic (a malevolent magic system). They both have kings who are also their brothers, and mysterious elves who directly encourage their magical paths and journeys—Callum's has his best interests in heart, Viren's very much does not.

While the main difference between them is that Viren primarily seeks magic and power for a sense of self-importance — eventually forsaking and damaging his family unit — Callum seeks magic and power to protect his loved ones; he'd never forsake them. What the show then displays, then, is that like Viren once upon a time, Callum's road to hell is paved with good intentions (Viren did and does love his family) even if he never falls prey to the same political ambitions, there's still heavy Consequences for the magical choices he's making. Viren, meanwhile, moves towards where Callum stands, loving his family again and learning to make selfless choices even if he's never forgiven. Callum even becomes High Mage, just like Viren, and uses Viren's staff / takes it as his.

They both say shit like:

VIREN: If it's love, then nothing else matters. Do what you must. (6x06) VERSION OF CALLUM: It's not about you, is it? If you love her, you'll be the you that can save her. You'll do what you must.

And like, everyone in TDP kind of has foil bonds like this. Viren and Callum's is definitely the most developed central foil relationship, but Claudia and Rayla — whose foil dynamic reminds me of a messier Azula and Katara, respectively, are Also like this to an absurd degree. Whereas in ATLA Katara doesn't really have any personality similarities to Azula except perhaps like, determination and maybe a temper, TDP is out here letting the antagonists make good choices and the protagonists make crappy ones because they are so painfully similar it hurts.

[fantasyforbeginners]

Because I'll never pass up a chance to dunk on the star wars sequel trilogy

[fantasyforbeginners]

Hello! Do you have any tips on conceptualizing and planning character arcs? I’ve been struggling with figuring out how to write arcs that pertain to the theme. When I do have an Idea for that and how the arc ends, I have issues with how to progress the arc in a natural way in the story. Thank you!

Yes I do! (I'm a theme down kind of writer, so I think I can reverse engineer this a bit...)

While it can be useful to at first conceptualize theme as a big general idea (i.e. Power), what typically ends up happening over the course of the plot is that a more specific, centralized theme takes shape (ie. those who care for others should wield power as opposed to those who don't, as a simple example).

What your plot arcs become, then, is ways to push the character Toward that epiphany (or explain why they don't reach it, especially if they're an antagonist who represents the opposite theme).

For example, I'm working on a novel right now where the main theme is that "Leadership requires sacrifices". The plot, then, is structured around 3 places the main character goes to and forms relationships at, to push her to learn that lesson.

In the first place, she learns the lesson through a leader who sacrificed being there for her family/children in favour of prioritizing the greater good / social movements. In the second place, she learns about seeing an end through no matter the personal or political cost and what makes a good leader (i.e. prioritizing the people around you > your own personal ends, to a degree). In the third, she learns that sometimes being a leader means making tough/terrible decisions and you may lose the favour of those around you, even those you love dearly whom you made those decisions to protect.

A more specific plot example would be Aang in season one of Avatar: The Last Airbender. Unfrozen from his iceberg 100 years out of time, Aang struggles to adjust to how the world has changed. Therefore, a good chunk of his focused episodes (the Southern Air Temple, King of Omashu, the Storm, Bato of the Water Tribe, the Northern Air Temple) deal with him feeling out of place culturally or cosmically or dealing with his grief. A common episode conceit is therefore Aang revisiting or going home to a place he used to know but finding it fundamentally changed, or that others have cultural connections and relationships he is no longer or cannot be privy to in the same manner.

If we have a character in a book who's main theme is "those with power should wield it responsibly," we have to have encounters where they wield it, or see others wield it, irresponsibly. It's useful to think of it as "where is my character Starting" and "what can get them to the conclusion at the end?" i.e. what lesson do you need them to learn (or not learn, for negative growth)?

For example, if I have a character who's selfish and I want them to have a positive arc trajectory, their emotional progression is probably gonna look something like:

They're selfish and here's how

They have the opportunity to not be selfish, but are anyway

They're selfish again, and we learn more about why

They're selfish but start doubting if they did the right thing, or experience regret

Next time they make a better choice

Seeing the positive impact can make them realize they want to continue this way; seeing the negative impact could make them temporarily backslide

Something (another character or situation) pushes them to reach a Breaking point epiphany

They decide to be selfless / are, and make it clear that their behaviour will continue to consistently change and be different

This allows a little character mystery (why are they like this = backstory time) and for your character to progress forward in stages. Nobody changes radically overnight, and it's rare for characters (or people) to have entirely new thought patterns even when they decide to make changes. (A great example of this is Rayla from The Dragon Prince, since even when she decides to not be an assassin anymore, she still hasn't let go of her ideals of sacrifice based on being an assassin and just applies them elsewhere, oftentimes to the detriment of herself or her relationships/others.)

Having this kind of emotional progression also allows you to map plot events onto each stage, ie.

They're selfish and here's how = character introduction and exposition. Maybe a prince has money but not giving any to a beggar at the marketplace because they look down on people

They have the opportunity to not be selfish, but are anyway = Kingly father beseeches them to care about their royal responsibilities, but they blow him off anyway and skip their duties

They're selfish again, and we learn more about why = Upon facing consequences for skipping duties, the prince reveals that he's lonely ever since his mother died saving people, and he's directed his unprocessed anger at her for leaving him onto those same people

They're selfish but start doubting if they did the right thing, or experience regret = the prince is rude/selfish towards to a visiting dignitary that was a friend of his mother's, and the friend reflects he used to be a much sweeter boy / that his mother would be disappointed in him

Next time they make a better choice = prince decides to take royal duties more seriously to give the friend a better impression, and gives money on the street. Partially to make a good impression, but also because - why not, right?

Seeing the positive impact can make them realize they want to continue this way; seeing the negative impact could make them temporarily backslide = positive way is more straight forward (giving is good, and prince wants to make a difference by opening a new orphanage named after his mother) / negative can depend on secondary character flaws (prince has a temper and feels angry they got 'guilted' into it, lashes out but quickly apologizes this time)

Something (another character or situation) pushes them to reach a Breaking point epiphany = Building the orphanage is more difficult than expected, and someone made a careless mistake that messed things up. The prince goes to lash out or shut the project down, but realizes the person is afraid of him / thinks of his mother and what she would do (maybe after they'd made a mistake as a kid). They decide to give the person a second chance and help them out

They decide to be selfless / are, and make it clear that their behaviour will continue to consistently change and be different = Prince finishes building the orphanage, mother's friend and father proudly attend the grand opening. Prince stands at the back and lets the workers have the spotlight and is more than happy to

Ideally, our theme and character arcs are Married, and the way we get down the aisle is with Plot. Plot is just "Situations You Put Your Characters In," after all, so it might as well be for character development (good or bad) that also reinforces the messaging (bad characters are bad because of XYZ, good characters are good because of XYZ) in some manner along the way.

Hope this helps, but if not (or even if it does) feel free to send in any future questions anytime!

[fantasyforbeginners]

Tips for writing flawed but lovable characters.

Flawed characters are the ones we root for, cry over, and remember long after the story ends. But creating a character who’s both imperfect and likable can feel like a tightrope walk. 

1. Flaws That Stem From Their Strengths

When a character’s greatest strength is also their Achilles' heel, it creates depth.

Strength: Fiercely loyal.

Flaw: Blind to betrayal or willing to go to dangerous extremes for loved ones.

“She’d burn the whole world down to save her sister—even if it killed her.”

2. Let Their Flaws Cause Problems

Flaws should have consequences—messy, believable ones.

Flaw: Impatience.

Result: They rush into action, ruining carefully laid plans.

“I thought I could handle it myself,” he muttered, staring at the smoking wreckage. “Guess not.”

3. Show Self-Awareness—or Lack Thereof

Characters who know they’re flawed (but struggle to change) are relatable. Characters who don’t realize their flaws can create dramatic tension.

A self-aware flaw: “I know I talk too much. It’s just… silence makes me feel like I’m disappearing.” A blind spot: “What do you mean I always have to be right? I’m just better at solving problems than most people!”

4. Give Them Redeeming Traits

A mix of good and bad keeps characters balanced.

Flaw: They’re manipulative.

Redeeming Trait: They use it to protect vulnerable people.

“Yes, I lied to get him to trust me. But he would’ve died otherwise.”

Readers are more forgiving of flaws when they see the bigger picture.

5. Let Them Grow—But Slowly

Instant redemption feels cheap. Characters should stumble, fail, and backslide before they change.

Early in the story: “I don’t need anyone. I’ve got this.”

Midpoint: “Okay, fine. Maybe I could use some help. But don’t get used to it.”

End: “Thank you. For everything.”

The gradual arc makes their growth feel earned.

6. Make Them Relatable, Not Perfect

Readers connect with characters who feel human—messy emotions, bad decisions, and all.

A bad decision: Skipping their best friend’s wedding because they’re jealous of their happiness.

A messy emotion: Feeling guilty afterward but doubling down to justify their actions.

A vulnerable moment: Finally apologizing, unsure if they’ll be forgiven.

7. Use Humor as a Balancing Act

Humor softens even the most prickly characters.

Flaw: Cynicism.

Humorous side: Making snarky, self-deprecating remarks that reveal their softer side.

“Love? No thanks. I’m allergic to heartbreak—and flowers.”

8. Avoid Overdoing the Flaws

Too many flaws can make a character feel unlikable or overburdened.

Instead of: A character who’s selfish, cruel, cowardly, and rude.

Try: A character who’s selfish but occasionally shows surprising generosity.

“Don’t tell anyone I helped you. I have a reputation to maintain.”

9. Let Them Be Vulnerable

Vulnerability adds layers and makes flaws understandable.

Flaw: They’re cold and distant.

Vulnerability: They’ve been hurt before and are terrified of getting close to anyone again.

“It’s easier this way. If I don’t care about you, then you can’t leave me.”

10. Make Their Flaws Integral to the Plot

When flaws directly impact the story, they feel purposeful rather than tacked on.

Flaw: Their arrogance alienates the people they need.

Plot Impact: When their plan fails, they’re left scrambling because no one will help them.

Flawed but lovable characters are the backbone of compelling stories. They remind us that imperfection is human—and that growth is possible.

[fantasyforbeginners]

Some of the biggest fantasy worldbuilding fails that I see, in no particular order

Gods without religion. The Gods are real and a known historical fact, but virtually nobody is religious.

Cultural racism/discrimination without structural racism/discrimination. Discrimination that exists only in microagressions or mean comments, without existing in any sort of structural way.

Secret history with no clear reason for it to be secret and no clear method for maintaining that secrecy. Major parts of the world's history are kept entirely secret, even though there's not an obvious reason to do so and even when history has shown this is virtually impossible to enforce (especially in a world with any movement or communication across borders).

Large, homogeneous countries. Even without immigration, virtually no country larger than the Vatican will be fully homogeneous in terms of culture, dialect, beliefs, traditions, etc., much less a large one with limited communication technology as is often seen in fantasy. The Planet of Hats problem.

[fantasyforbeginners]

What’s the difference between retcons/inconsistency and unreliable narrators?

That's a great question! To me the biggest difference is framing, and how through framing / pacing often times we can discern intention, which is arguably the biggest difference between "the story changed and/or things were forgotten (retcon)" and "the story had this planned ahead of time / did it this way on purpose (unreliable narrator)".

Retcons are also not always a bad thing —occasionally, they can make a story better — but they are, usually, a noticeable break from continuity, and thereby have a greater risk of mitigating setup/payoff. I still remember playing Uncharted 3 when I was young and we finally get more of Nate's backstory, of him being around 13/14 years old when he gets into a skirmish that his mentor-turned-accidental criminal dad figure Sully gets him out of as their first meeting / that Nate had been alone for a while (he has case files, they say his family is dead / implies that the rest of his family is too), and I loved it... only for Uncharted 4 (another very good game!) to reveal that Nate had an older brother who he was with around that same age range and only lost at a significantly older age. We gain an interesting dynamic with his brother and another version of his backstory, but for me it significantly lessened the impact of his and Sully's bond and the character work done in the previous game. Yippee?

For a better more specific example, I'm going to use two fantasy cartoons, The Owl House and The Dragon Prince, to illustrate the difference in meaning, since the former retcons quite a bit, and the latter is a really good example of unreliable narration.

TOH retcons mostly in its character introductions. It is common — and in fact it happens like, 7 times across the show — for a character to be introduced in a more antagonistic way / specific kind of setup, and then for that to be completely hand-waved or never brought up again, like that set up didn't exist.

An example I always come back to is Lilith and Amity. I like both of them well enough as characters, but I I think a lot of discourse around Amity comes from the fact her defining features of her very first scene / dynamic is quickly retconned within the same season. We see her stroll in alone to the scene, bully another girl named Willow for her lacklustre magic skills, and then merrily carry on her way. However, later on in the show, we find out that Willow and Amity used to be best friends till Amity's parents step in and both enforce that Amity needs to end the friendship. Amity does so, immensely hurting Willow's feelings, and modern day Amity expresses a lot of regret over not standing up for her.

Fair enough... but why have Amity bully Willow on screen? Why have Willow react and imply that this has been happening for years? Amity did not have to bully Willow; her parents didn't tell her she had to. Amity expresses feeling a lot of social pressure and expectation, to be fair, but why not just have Amity only bully Willow or only be a bystander to it when around her popular clique (since we see Amity's friend Boscha regularly bully Willow later anyway)? They clearly came up with a concept/plot line, didn't follow through on their set up in Willow and Amity's character introduction episode, and then let the conflict get retconned swept under the rug.

They do this multiple times in the show, but other ones that stood out to me was Lilith (who again, in her introductory scene in the whole show!! is introduced as Amity's longstanding teacher/personal mentor) and Amity's parents, as the bad parenting choices get entirely retconned and heaped onto her mother's shoulders, and her father is absolved of all of it. I get needing to retcon some things sometimes, but first impressions particularly for characters do matter, as it teaches us what to expect and what to get invested in, and the fact that TOH does it repeatedly (seven times is not minimal, for ex!) is one of the things that I think makes it a very enjoyable but not a very well written/consistently written show.

Alternatively, "The Dragon Prince" never does character retcons. The show steadily reveals how characters — namely Viren, a dark mage, and Aaravos, a mysterious figure who manipulates others from the shadows — are unreliable narrators, or that the lore and history of the world as we understand it is missing and incomplete.

The longest lore unravelling that the series has is based on its magic system, which has taken 7 seasons to unravel (with further to go, honestly).

In the season 1 intro / season 1 in general, we're told that the land in Xadia was rich in magic, that elves and dragons are connected to magic, and that humans invented dark magic (because they couldn't access primal magic), which required taking from magical creatures (elves and dragons included!) to work. We learn later that like... none of this is true? Or at least not the way we thought, down to the framing and information being withheld or revealed in the 1x01 vs 3x01 opening scenes.

The neat little intro scene that you thought was just there to explain the magic system and some important lore events is, shot for parallel shot, about a dragon falling into the ocean to put out the fire a dark mage (who was protecting his city from annihilation) branded into his eyes. The lie that humans aren't able to naturally have primal magic is also steadily broken down throughout season 2, 5, and particularly 6, with characters lampshading that others regularly withhold the truth, or display things because of their own biased perspectives (for both antagonists and protagonists).

The show does this kind of thing all the time, even in more subtle ways. For example, for the first five seasons, we think we know who the title refers to — the Dragon Prince Azymondias, wrongly believed to have been killed by humans, and the quest to return him to his mother makes up the bulk of the first three seasons. However, there's another Dragon Prince in this tale who was instrumental in beginning the cycle of violence (twice) in this world, with us going back 1,000 and then closer to 2-3,000 years further back respectively. Or, for example, despite being told in the S1 intro that both halves of Xadia were rich in magic, the western (now human) half of the continent is notably lacking, even in season 1. We only get the answer of WHY in S7, but it makes sense with what we know of the world (and is indeed what I'd always suspected) AND fits with throwaway historical lines from S2. In TDP, chances are you can always trace back any 'inconsistencies' in the lore or history even further back, and realize we were always supposed to be letting them stack up and/or questioning what we've been told...

Even something like betrayal is a matter of perspective, after all, and I think it's allowing grey room between perspectives — who is the traitor? Who is right? Who is wrong? — that allows TDP to build complex characters and dynamics. Their antagonists aren't wholly wrong, and their protagonists aren't wholly right. Finding our way into the middle, then, is the sticking point.

For a few wonder-filled years, we each have innocent eyes to experience the world’s beauty in a simple way. I have seen generations of humans and elves accept the darkness that lurks in all of us beside the light. There is no black or white, only shades of gray. We must all carry complexity. But please believe me that there is beauty in this burden. Your heart will be a little heavier. But now, there will be no more half-truths.

TLDR; character retcons are very difficult to do well because they break setup, payoff, and make first impressions useless or, if it comes enough out of nowhere, makes audience members feel like they were wrong to be invested. Inconsistent writing steadily chips away at your audience's ability to be invested. Unreliable narrators are always evident, should be steadily built throughout the story, and lore/history being revealed to be a lie is much easier for your audience to accept emotionally because it preserves or enhances character investment; you just have to make it clear early on that this is a feature of your storytelling choices, not a bug.

[fantasyforbeginners]

If you don’t mind, I want to ask a question about theme. I’ve been understanding theme as a central idea or question that the plot and character’s arcs were filtered through. However, I noticed most stories, especially longer ones, have more than 1 theme. How do you scaffold multiple themes in one story while keeping everything cohesive?

Aah I write primarily from theme (which I'll explain in a sec) so this is very exciting! I always love talking about theme.

So themes tend to fall into 2 main categories/types

(Moral) Messaging: this is the more simplistic version of Little Red Riding Hood being about not straying off the path or not talking to strangers. Very common for children's tales / movies (think "do not be deceived/judge by appearances" from Disney's Beauty and the Beast).

An Idea: aka a work has a general idea that they want to explore in a broad variety of ways, even if they usually settling on a main one. This is also where we get the idea of 'universal themes' (grief, loss, growing up, family, platonic/romantic love, etc).

For example, both Romeo and Juliet and A Midsummer Night's Dream have forbidden lovers and the broader 'universal' theme of Love. However, R&J is infamously a tragedy and about how love struggles to make a difference amid violence (though the parents' love for their children does end the feud, but only after their deaths). Midsummer is a comedy with a happily ever after / triple wedding/engagement, and mostly focuses on how love makes people do ridiculous, stupid things.

Most of the time, then, stories will have multiple sub-themes folded under a big overarching one.

A story that's about Death can also be about grief, revenge, and moving on or growing up. A story about Power is also going to (probably) inevitably end up being about responsiblity and corruption, etc or vice versa.

For my own books (more info here at @alvoskia) I knew my big overarching theme was (the horrors of) War. Subthemes ended up being childhood, trauma, power, healing, and dehumanization. Even smaller ones ended up being mother-daughter relationships. My main protagonist's arc became folded under a core theme of "feeling connected vs feeling disconnected"—to her powers, to herself, to her friends, and to other people. Something something "war encourages or creates disconnection, healing demands (re)connection". The first book, for example, is about her initial journey towards being re-connected; the second book focuses more on ideas of power, specifically leadership, and how that can disconnect you from others because of your sense of responsibility or the difficult choices you have to make. It gives me a guiding basis to keep in mind to ensure that I'm always exploring/approaching new ideas that still tie back to old ones and evolve the characters.

So asking yourself about what other ideas you're naturally exploring, and go looking, can help you realize what you're interested in and how to lean in further to help scaffold something that feels more cohesive and fine-tuned. Figuring out what specific themes or questions you're most interested in exploring with specific characters can also be useful. For example, your navigator character could have an arc/theme of "what do you do when you get lost (literally or metaphorically)?" and depending on your answers (destroying yourself to ruin; finding faith in yourself or your loved ones, etc) you're gonna have a slightly different theme take each time, which is fun.

Other examples of multiple theme layering could be about how Avatar: The Last Airbender has a primary theme of "the importance of cultural preservation in the face of imperialism" which becomes folded under "the importance of preserving your identity in the face of imperialism"; the show itself never states these ideas aloud, but quotations such as "you must bring balance to yourself before you can bring balance to the world" and "you got so angry you weren't even you anymore" make it pretty plain.

For something that's a little less "these themes automatically go together," I'll point to The Dragon Prince, wherein the primary theme is "why do cycles of violence exist (and how can we break them)?" The show then has two main secondary themes: 1) grief, revenge, and violence within interpersonal relationships and warfare (trying to move forward with a narrative of love vs doing terrible things in the name of love); 2) systemic inequality within its magic system. The first theme is a natural byproduct of the second (systemic inequality creates death, and therefore grief / anger and revenge) BUT the second theme of inequality is one that stories about cycles of violence do not necessarily need to have (i.e. Macbeth or Romeo and Juliet) so I appreciate its inclusion.

So what worked best for me was:

Making my themes big ideas like umbrella terms

Turning smaller themes into questions to explore

Considering what other ideas or concepts are explored within your initial themes that can be fleshed out further

[fantasyforbeginners]

If you don’t mind me asking, when does a symbol/parallel become a motif? Thank you!

That is an excellent question!

A symbol can happen just once in a text (poem, movie, play, etc). If it repeats twice, that can just be a parallel. Once it tips over into being reoccurring, that would be a motif (so a symbol that repeats multiple times).

An example would be eye symbolism in Netflix's The Dragon Prince. The first prominent example is almost halfway through season 2, wherein a dark mage named Viren uses a true-sight serum on his eyes to see into a mystical mirror. It literally distorts his vision, demonstrating that his ability to see things clearly (and what lurks in the mirror itself) is going to impair his judgement. The scene would work on a symbolic level on its own. However, characters'/his eye symbolism repeats and grows throughout the series till it's one of the more prominent motifs in a show absolutely littered with them.

[fantasyforbeginners]

Hello! If you don’t mind, I wanted to ask you..how do you know if a story is worthy of analysis? I feel I don’t have an intuition for what a Good story looks like since I haven’t seen too many (and I tend to not like the ones I do see???), and when I try to analyze my (bad) favorite shows, I feel like I’m gaslighting myself into thinking it’s deep. Lmao. Is there even a point in trying to analyze if you don’t have good taste? I hope you have a good weekend!

Quick note: there's not really such a thing as 'good taste' or 'bad taste'. Classics are usually not classics, after all, because of a bar of quality that they pass (though many of them are very very good) but because they were very influential of literature that came after (Jane Eyre inventing the coming-of-age genre for female main characters), very popular, or a great look at how people were thinking and feeling at the time they were written (The Great Gatsby, More's Utopia).

What's more useful framing, might be "this story worked for me on Various factors" vs "I only like a few things from this story and am discontented with the rest of it". Both can be useful to analyze in their own way. I will say, however, that if you focus on reading/watching/engaging with things where you enjoy more of the story than you don't, you will have a better time and probably end up learning more, especially if you're trying to build up analysis skills to start with, because it is easier to analyze something fairly when you enjoy it than it is with something you don't enjoy and you haven't built those analytical skills in advance. (More here on some of the analytical skills that are useful to employ that also provides good questions to start with when it comes to analysis.)

That said, the good news is that any story is worthy of analysis!

Every story has different strengths and weaknesses, and they're all worth examining. Whether a story is 'shallow' or 'deep' can differ depending on what you're looking for; some stories are light on plot but go deep on character work, for example. Different stories/shows also have different aims and requirements to succeed within their genres. For example, a sitcom doesn't need to have strong worldbuilding, but a great understanding of their cast's chemistry and how to pace the storylines they do have. Alternatively, while not every fantasy property needs to have a lot of lore to be 'Good,' if a fantasy series breaks their lore, chances are it's not going to be a very good fantasy series.

This also goes into looking at stories you think are bad but enjoy anyway. Clearly something is keeping you there (probably the characters) so what is it about that aspect you think the show did well, at least once upon a time? Even if you think they're bungling their execution of the characters, that probably means the show did a good job at crafting characters that were compelling on a premise basis, even if they're not living up to it.

I also think a good indicator of quality—at least what I find in the stories I enjoy, and why only 2 stories in my life have Disappointed me (the Star Wars sequel trilogy after the first movie, and Voltron: Legendary Defender after s3 and I cut ties after s6 / knew s7 and s8 wouldn't be to my taste)—is asking yourself "Is it evident that they have a clear end goal in mind while writing?"

This can be a clear end goal for getting a character from Point A to Point Z, or a conflict, or a theme. For example, Avatar: The Last Airbender makes it very clear from its title and initial episodes (Aang being both "the boy (child) in the iceberg" from ep1 and "the avatar returns" from ep2 followed by "the southern air temple" as his birthplace) that his main journey is about reconciling these three identity factors — being a child; being the Avatar; being the last airbender — is his main arc. This is evident even without looking too much even from the episode plot themselves or the dialogue, though they help push it further and develop it, of course. Therefore, the last episode of the series being "Avatar Aang" and the central conflict being his identity is unsurprising, and shows that this core goal was built throughout and then to fruition. This is also why defeating the Firelord was always going to have to be a non-violent (pacifist) solution; not because Aang is 12 and doesn't want to kill anyoneThis does not mean that the reconciliation of his identity / how this idea was developed or finished has to be to your personal taste, but it IS objective that there's a consistent arc and ideas being put forth.

This can also be something in plot and worldbuilding/lore. For example The Dragon Prince made it very clear two seasons in that 1) humans not having magic was unfair and the story was conscious of it ("the blindfold gives us a way to test the system to imagine we have not been born yet [...] that a fair system should be fair no matter the accident of my birth, that the laws and opportunities should stand to empower everyone") and 2) this unfair magic system would be fixed (main character proves humans can connect to primal natural magic after all). Therefore, 4+ seasons later when we finally started to get into the weeds of having characters In The Narrative who decided that humans couldn't have magic, and that these characters also suck absolute ass, like... Yeah, because this system was always unfair, and dismantling it Eventually was always going to be a Thing. Clear plot and worldbuilding goals from the start being steadily taken to fruition.

Good stories are not necessarily dense and complex, either. I know for me I tend to lean towards stories that have lots of motifs/symbols and are very thematic, because looking for that 'deeper' meaning is fun for my brain. I also find they help create richer, more engaging characters and plotlines. However, I also enjoy stories that have only 1-2 themes and very few symbols because they have other things that are still very good, like plot or character bonds.

The reason why it's helpful to feel and/or tell that a story has a Clear Vision (an end goal or multiple goals) in mind is because the two pillars of analysis (at least how I've always engaged it and how my professors encouraged me to) was two main things:

You examine every part of the story to see how it works together.

You examine every part of the story to see how it works together in good faith.

And sometimes this means leaving your personal hang ups or biases or feelings at the door. It is easier to argue in good faith when you like something (aka something works for you) which is why I recommend starting there. Doing so when something doesn't work for you, especially on a first pass, is important in creating an expansive viewpoint and stepping outside of your personal bubble.

For ex, like 10 years ago when Moana came out I felt like her conflict with her parents was a bit underdeveloped because she didn't 'push back against them "enough"'. I realized on my own that I was probably expecting a more Western (white) protagonist, rewatched the movie with a more collectivist mindset, and my previous complaint went away, because it was grounded in my (limited) cultural (dominant) context, not the movies (nor was I necessarily the audience in mind, anyway, which is also useful to keep in mind).

So, things worth analyzing in stories which can all be entirely separate (but often overlap):

How they utilize their protagonists and antagonists from a: characterization standpoint, from a foils standpoint, from a plot standpoint, from a thematic standpoint.

How does a story introduce ideas, such as: their characters, relationships, threats, conflicts, solutions, themes.

How does a story pace its: plot, character arcs, relationships, instalments (chapters, episodes, sequels, etc).

What are the repeating ideas in the story? Similar shots, turns of phrase, choices, etc? (Parallels/patterns is how characterization and growth / theme are built, so it's especially useful). Is the story drawing on other older tropes or ideas to subvert them?

All stories, even 'bad' ones, are worth looking at for how they do these things and which parts worked for you.

Ask why. Just always ask why. "This character made such a selfish choice" --> "This character made a selfish choice. Why do I think it's selfish? Do I think the character thinks it's selfish, or justified? Why? What could the narrative be saying about what/who/why people make selfish choices? Why would this character be selfish? Is this in line with their consistent behaviour? If not, why do I think that? Am I overlooking something?"

For example, in the movie adaptation of Wicked which was quite good, Glinda was portrayed exactly as I like to be portrayed: she's allowed to be more cunning and mean and artificial rather than playing up her 'ditziness'. However, while I generally prefer my Elphabas to be a bit angrier/meaner/sharper, I really appreciate that they didn't have her be that way when they cast a Black woman to play her. My preferences, depending on the context(s) of the adaptations, casting, staging, etc. do not rule all, and the film is not worse as an adaptation for not aligning with that specific preference of mine; on the contrary, I think it is undoubtedly better precisely because it doesn't align.

Now for the (hopefully shorter?) recommendations section because it seems like you tend to be dissatisfied with what you're watching and there's 100% stuff out there that'd suit your tastes better and/or be helpful to learn from even if they aren't:

The Dragon Prince (TDP) for its explorations of morality, its character work, its respect for all of its character emotional states, and how consistently it makes you watch all of its characters ("good" guys or "bad" guys) make choices that are bad or you know are gonna have disastrous consequences, but you also get 100% why they're making them every time. A 'good guy' protagonist uses a torture spell on someone when he absolutely did not have to. A 'villainous' character saves his sick child from dying. The show slaps. Also a very good example of thematic maturation, where the series starts off with a more simplistic view of love (love = good) for the first 3 seasons, only to then explore the darker underside (you will do terrible things in the name of love) consistently across the main cast.

Six of Crows for the way its multi-POV chapter style hammers home what you can do with gaps of information/perception between characters. How Inej or Matthias view Kaz, or vice versa for example, is radically different, and illustrates how as an author you have to hold/understand many differing viewpoints and motivations on your characters and their actions simultaneously. The YA fantasy duology also does a great job at showing how to craft characters who are very distinct from each other in personality and association, bolstered by the symbols/objects given to each of the main cast (Matthias is associated with wolves; Inej has her braid and two knives and ghost-imagery; Kaz has his gloves, his crows, his canes, etc).

Avatar: The Last Airbender (ATLA) for its cultural worldbuilding and natural worldbuilding integration. The former is due to its pacing and its biggest main theme as a series being "cultural preservation in the face of imperialism is important," with the latter due to its strong character work (Sokka's sarcasm often provides a basis for Aang or Katara to correct him or explain things in greater detail in Book One, for example).

Sidenote: This is also a great example where understanding how a story is operating vs personal preference be useful. For ex, my brother preferred Dragon Prince to ATLA because ATLA was slower paced and he liked stuff that was faster, and TDP focuses on historical/lore worldbuilding whereas ATLA focuses on cultural worldbuilding partially due to being paced slower / having more room within its seasons, but the trade off is that TDP has more character development and is more thematically tight, which is my preference.

Tales of Arcadia: Trollhunters for its utilization of a very strong roster of multiple villains / antagonists going at all times, and subsequently for its plot pacing as a result. Many shows have what I call a 'crowning achievement'—the thing this show does very well amid other things it does well—and I think this is undeniably Trollhunters' greatest strength. I'm not usually much of an antagonist person (I tend to be most invested in the protags) but I think Trollhunters' willingness to subvert pacing expectations and keep a general sense of uneasiness adds to the fun of the show, i.e. 2 villains want the same thing so one teams up with the hero, etc.

Crazy Ex Girlfriend (musical comedy drama tv show) because it's a great example of a deconstruction narrative and an unreliable narrator as a protagonist. Basically S2 onwards goes "remember all those sit/rom-com trope things you laughed at in S1 that we made light of? yeah they're all unhealthy and here's why" while still remaining a comedy. The show also deconstructs common tropes and expectations around love / female archetypes as well as the title itself in thoughtful discussions on mental illness without ever being preachy.

Jurassic World: Camp Cretaceous for writing interpersonal character conflict / dynamics without ever feeling contrived. This is probably one of the 'simpler' shows on the list (there's a few framing parallels, 1-2 verbal motifs, meanwhile like every other line or shot in TDP winds up having deeper meaning, especially on rewatches) but what it does well, it does very well. The main 6 kids who are left stranded on the island are very well written, the show provides ample space for everyone to be developed and balances storylines / character beats, it lets you see how trauma is affecting them without always spelling it out, and the dialogue always sounds like stuff real people would say or reason through without feeling like the characters sound too young or too old or anything like that.

TLDR; you like what you like, even if that's just parts of a story, and you have good reasons for liking it. Examining what you don't like and why can also be useful. Separating stories or parts of them into "this is bad vs this is good" can be a useful jumping off point, but in order to analyze having specific reasons for each one while considering why the story made the choices it did (in good faith) is a strong foundation.

Sorry this is long, but hope it helps! Most of my recs are all completed series, on Netflix, or easy to find online if you do choose to look into any of them <3

[fantasyforbeginners]

organized the main pages for characters, worldbuilding, and plot, pacing, & premises but thought it might be useful to do a little collection of the actual writing advice i've down for each one here, too. hope you enjoy!

CHARACTER WRITING:

How do I figure out my character’s personality?

Character Development vs Character Maintenance 

The Importance of Emotionally Inhabiting Your Characters 

Why you should listen to what you Don’t Know about your characters (and what it can tell you)

How Character Based Humour Can Help Balance Tone

Hero and Villain Foils

WORLDBUILDING:

How to design fantasy creatures

Rule of 3: A Simple Solution for Cultural Worldbuilding

What is the nature of your Magic System?

How to Introduce Fantasy Concepts / Make Exposition Feel More Natural

Decolonizing Your Language Construction / Lingua Francas

PLOTTING & PACING

3 Ways to Build Story Intrigue: Premise, Worldbuilding, Characters

Long form vs Short Stories

How to deal with writer’s block when you don’t outline