3 Point Characterization

[wickedwords]

Note: This rant brought to you from Highlander's ancient past, but it seemed appropriate given the current discussion going on in Atlantis. I figured some people hadn't heard my theory of three point characterization.



To me, fanfic characterization revolves around the extrapolation of traits that we see in canon. The behaviors that a character exhibits -- what they say, what they do, how they behave with others -- are like points on a grid. They cluster together around certain ideas, and those are what we come to think of as a characters core traits. We draw circles and arrows and lines around those, and extrapolate where the end point might be if things continued along in a similar fashion, or we try to break up the pattern by deflecting the line and making it go a different way.

Do a good job of inference or show all your work in deflecting that line and the story will usually be thought of as 'in character.'

However, there are outliers to those core characteristics; behaviors and thoughts that seem really outside of what the character 'normally' does. Some fans go so far as to say those characteristics are OOC -- even if they are shown in canon -- because they are so far outside of what their expectations are based on how they have graphed the points in the character's past.

And sometimes, the author will be working from only 3 points of data to draw their lines, or stick only to their 'preferred behaviors' even if those happened in only a couple of episodes. (This happens with Duncan and Methos all the time.) An author will take those 3 points and create a completely new behavior chart, extrapolating from that.

Or even, occasionally, when the author hasn't seen much canon, some of those points are crafted from stereotypes and fanon, and the storyline grows out of that.

So for the people that see those three points as truly describing the character's core, those stories are recognizably in-character even without a lot of work. They can see the line, the path, where it started and where it goes.

But for those that see those three points as outliers -- well, they're screwed. They aren't on the same page as the author when the story starts, so there's no way they can get to the same place when the story ends.

And they are likely to be the ones that say "that story was out-of-character for me."

katallison's One for the Road is one of the classics of three point characterization in HL, as is Something Borrowed, Something Blue, the Methos-as-serial-killer story.

Both of these stories are internally consistent and highly recommended. They just don't have my Methos or Duncan in them.

The Methos-as-serial-killer one is actually easier to discuss, as it fiats in that Methos was not just tempted by Kronos (which he was) but that he has periodically indulged in killing sprees after leaving the horsemen (the non-canonical what if moment.) The author's logic is simple: if he has done it in the past, he would do that now.

The bone of contention? Once he turned away from the slaughter, did he ever fall? The author says yes. Canon, though, seems to indicate 'No.' The theory here being that if he had said 'yes' to slaughter in the past, why not say yes to Kronos now, when Kronos is tempting him so? And if he says 'no' now, why does he say 'yes' two weeks from now or why did he say 'yes' two years ago?

To write this story, the author has to ignore all of these questions, and go with 'well, sometimes he says yes.' Some people see that as a good enough response and the story works for them. For others, myself included, it's not a good enough answer and so despite the internal consistency, the story falls flat.

Three points can create a line, or a plane, or a triangle -- and sometimes it creates a damn fine story.

And sometimes it's just …three points.

Comments

[killabeez.livejournal.com]

You make me so happy when you graph things.

I'm really glad you used "One for the Road" as one of your examples. That is definitely one of those stories where I often find myself saying, "Yup, extremely well-written story. Not my Methos." Sometimes I think it's such a well-written and popular story that it's almost become one of Methos' 3 points of characterization. Which is fun, and interesting, and still, not my Methos. *g*

[cathexys.livejournal.com]

this is a great theory and it fits in perfectly with the thoughts i've been having on AUs and ARs. the same thing makes those work or doesn't. the points that remain the constants in a reality transition make or break that story for a reader. if the points are not core and central enough to the reader, the characterization fails. if the points are dead on, the space commander can be slaving away in ancient Rome and yet it reads in character...very interesting!!!

[maraceles.livejournal.com]

Oh, this makes a lot of sense. I guess the three points of characterization that I and many others have for McKay in the current debate is just different from the three points that other people have. Both are accurate, depending on where you stand. Coolness.

[elistaire.livejournal.com]

*nods*nods*nods*

What an excellent way to think about characterization!

[wickedwords.livejournal.com]

One for the Road and some of Mairead Triste's work started the whole 3-point discussion. There are lots of authors that run with it and combine them in new and interesting ways. *g* It is interesting that this view of Methos is almost ubiquitous now, whether I feel it's canonical or not. It's certainly the darwinian choice for who Methos is.

[wickedwords.livejournal.com]

Exactly. The core traits are what we latch onto to hold fast to, whatever those we might decide them to be. Bring the trait into an AU, and the reader will be able to follow them, no matter how odd the setting or what has changed in their background to get them to the current starting place.

And to modify those core traits requires some on-stage effort, more for big changes, less for smaller ones. We have to see how that change happened to really believe that it's true.

So it is possible to have a character cry and still have good characterization, but it often takes a lot of work to get there.

[wickedwords.livejournal.com]

It is tough to accept that fact, that different points-of-view about a character's actions can all be true at the same time. It's Schrodinger's story, where anything is possible given enough work and motivation, but you never know if it is enough until the story is read. We'd all like it to be simplier, for there to be 'good' and 'bad' characterization that is clearly apparent to all, but the question is really how good a technical job did the author do in showing all the work that was needed to make me buy into the story? That level of required work is different for everybody, and different for different stories -- plus the author is never required to make a story accessible to everyone, as disapointing as that may be to all the readers involved.

[wickedwords.livejournal.com]

Thanks! Many people, many versions of who these characters are. It's hard to keep them all straight. *g*

[cathexys.livejournal.com]

that is a wonderful metaphor!!! (i'm gonna have to mainstream your beain :D) i've used linguistic&psychoanalytic theory to describe that phenomenon of potentiality that the show collapses and we resurrect but then collapse again into *our* reading...i love this image so much, though.

plus, you totally get the cluster image of electron impacts when you use physics, right? there tend to be a couple of places where a lot of interpretations cluster, so we have like one slit, two slit, five slit experiments in characterization? [and did that just make sense to anyone outside my brain??? *g*] also, i just watched the first ep of numb3ers which was all about distribution patterns :-)

[cathexys.livejournal.com]

And to modify those core traits requires some on-stage effort i was just rereading a couple of canon posts and i never really get them, b/c for me the beauty of fanfic is that we can go places and take the characters places they've never gone before (and not *just* into bed :-). but it takes effort and work. i totally agree that some (though not all, at least not at the same time) core points can be altered. There's like a spectrum of what can be considred canonical and it's multidimensional and different for every viewer but any given interpretive community hangs out in pretty similar part of the acceptable range... [wow, and i just managed to conect back to both the HP and my AU paper i'm writing atm...talk about one track mind :-)]

[wickedwords.livejournal.com]

My own feeling is that you are allowed to alter on trait slightly, story unseen, but the more you alter and the larger the deviation, the more the change must be addressed -- or you just bail on it completely and say 'not what I want to write'. For example, in general I wouldn't approach a story with the idea that I wanted to appeal to readers who focus on kink more than characters; that's just not something I'm into. However, if I can present kink in a way that meshes with the characterization path I'm following from canon to non-canonical, I know that I have a good chance to take them along for the ride.

That's one of the reasons I like having a home for a story before I ever right it. I know what the parameters are that I'm trying to address, what the acceptable characterizations are -- and I can tweak them, as I am all about the backflip. *g*

[cathexys.livejournal.com]

oh, i totally love that point, b/c it meshes with my thoughts on interpretive communities. By having clear parameters, you know that you're in sync with your audience in ways that otherwise you my not be....

And yes on the one trait allowed rule :-)

[wickedwords.livejournal.com]

Yes, that does make sense. *g* We do get clusters and distributions of what is appropriate characterization, and all those !tags are was to identify clusters. hmm.

[saeva.livejournal.com]

What current debate on McKay? *deeply interested* *loves McKay*

- Andrea.

[wickedwords.livejournal.com]

It's primarily a discussion of astolat's latest story, and how McKay's character is crafted in it. destina has done a round up of links for it at the end of her post here (http://www.livejournal.com/users/destina/279831.html)

[maraceles.livejournal.com]

Oh, on his characterization, with the melting point being astolat's story, "Trancendental."

And the discussion has exploded in my LJ and mmmchelle's. Go do destina's LJ--all the links are there. *g*

[monanotlisa.livejournal.com]

very true, especially that:

However, there are outliers to those core characteristics; behaviors and thoughts that seem really outside of what the character 'normally' does. Some fans go so far as to say those characteristics are OOC -- even if they are shown in canon -- because they are so far outside of what their expectations are based on how they have graphed the points in the character's past.

[wickedwords.livejournal.com]

The fact that the characters aren't 100% predictable really bugs some fans, but I like the fact that there is some variety and things aren't always a straight line, that circumstances can change and the characters will adapt. That makes them feel more real to me, and a lot more interesting.