I love that you admit that people *can* change radically, but warn that doing so might lose your audience's connection with the character. Good distinction
I know right! But by the way, if you do it right, your audience will still have that connection, because they've followed along on the journey that caused the change.
This was very helpful. I do disagree with your take on the Tom character in Downton Abbey. People do change that much. He fell in love with his wife's family and they became his family. In later seasons when he and Mary teamed up, Tom was very influential in the expansion of Downton in the farming community. His core values were still there but with maturity he realized he wasn't going to get things done through anger. One of my favorite things about his character was that he had this wonderful sense of humor that could finally come out.
I agree. It wasn't a Revenge of the Sith speed change. It happened gradually, and each step of Tom's change of perspective appears in front of us. I would also argue the theme of Downtown Abbey is change, and adapting to your changing community as time goes by. Tom does exactly that.
I love when your character drives a plot because it's really fun to watch. You're like "oh wait, he should be doing that" but then everything is ABSOLUTELY different
What do you do if you have already written the main aspects of the plot and are still trying to figure out exactly who the characters are and what kind of dialogue they might have with each other? I'm trying to write a female character as one of the main characters and romantic tension dialogue with the main character whilst making her a unique individual character. I think she will express herself through her main strengths - caring, nurturing, feminine energy and weaknesses - loss, grief, loneliness, anger at her losing her family and old way of life and see how that might interact with the main character's strengths - logic, valour, justice, physical coordination and weaknesses - avoidance, anxious, slight awkwardness, not yet ready for leadership and try to show how they help each other realise their potential, help each other along the way and where they clash. I'm much better at writing action than dialogue so I'll probably mix a lot of the dialogue in with the action.
@@fireblade2681 sometimes I use dolls (I made them out of wire so they don't even have faces so they can be anyone) . Just "playing" with them like as in childhood I can imagine dialogues my characters have, their interaction, whole parts of the plot
@@Le_soleil_brille Thanks, I'm also going to write back stories which won't make it into the book so that I can understand my characters better, then I should be able to predict what they will say and how they will act better.
Personalities actually really can change dramatically in reality. Our relationships and experiences, over time, can cause changes in personality. However, I agree that, for the purpose of worrying, consistency in personality is huge. If a character's personality must change, we need to see the progression and the steps that lead to that change.
I think they can even change drastically but only after a huge event, like a trauma, another character's dead or something similar that created that change. It cannot be: Oh I woke up totally different this morning and that's it. They need to have some motivations for those changes.
Loved this video, this could be just me being a Natasha fan, but her arc made sense to me. The things I feel like she values the most are doing the right thing, her friends, and her freedom. Her making that choice is really to me preserving all of that. Signing the treaty keeps her off of the governments bad side, as I’m not pursuing her, especially in a situation where they do feel guilty for some of the things they caused. We know she already wants to wipe out red from her ledger, so potentially adding to it would be the last thing she wants to do. Lastly I think her desire to keep everyone together is the biggest driver, this is her family and she wants to keep them together at all costs. In a deleted scene it showcases that, and if following the rules was at first what she thought could keep them together I think she would’ve. It could’ve definitely been better executed, especially with internal conflict but that’s just my thinking!
I think look at the situation too. Characters speak and behave differently depending on who they are with, how they feel at the moment, what they want to get from other people.
Hi Kate and Abbie! I just wanted to tell you that you are two of the people who inspire me the most, both in writing and in life. I love how kind but professionally you teach us and help us to improve! I never thought that I would write so much at 15 years old, living in Portugal, as I do when I started. And just want you to know that you are the reason I improved my writing and the reason I go back to it even when I am somehow unmotivated. Merry Christmas for Portugal!
Great episode, as always! I had to laugh at the bit about the character taking things in a different direction when you let them have a consistent voice. The villain in my WIP is 100% like that. Every scene he is in, he takes it a direction I was not expecting it to go!
I have the same experience with one of my characters who keeps asking questions about subjects the other characters weren't so interested in... Resulted in me having to cut a lot off excessive dialogue lol
Great video! You should do one about doing effective research for a story (without getting carried away or overwhelmed with too much information that makes it hard to start actually writing) if you have any tips for that 😅
I have thrown away outlines as character progression and voice have derailed my best laid plans. Thankful that there's a resource like this to help edit while I work.
I just finished Downton for the first time and I ABSOLUTELY agree about Tom’s character change. The other characters were always telling him, “Do it for Sybil. What would Sybil want.” But Sybil would have never wanted him to abandon his true self and cast aside his beliefs.
Not to cast aside his beliefs, but she absolutely would want to feel like she makes a difference in his life and has the power to cheer him up. If she's normal.
Going with the beliefs, kinda like Eren from attack on titan. Spoilers ahead ** Erens beliefs always included freedom for himself and others like him inside the walls. He always believed he deserved to be in the world. So when zeke believes euthanasia is the best way to rid the world of their bloodline and Eren agrees, that was very out of character for him. But at this point in the story there’s a time and setting skip. We see Eren acting way different and very jaded. so we are stuck wondering what happened to change his beliefs to agree with such a plan? Then we find he was just using zeke and pretending to agree with his plan. So we totally see his character voice. Just my little aha moment about character voices
Watching this video made me reflect a lot on my issues with one of my favorites stories I’ve ever seen, Attack on Titan. That story does something in which we stop seeing the POV of the main character Eren after a certain point and we sometimes get a couple glimpses of his inner thoughts, but only at the very very end do we see again his real voice. It just makes it jarring because we spend a considerable portion of the story seeing his voice through other people’s perspectives while he is putting on this fake persona, and that disconnect really makes the whole story a bit harder to enjoy at some points
Reall helpful points, although I don't agree with Tom as an example. I think he matured into new beliefs by living without his wife and daughters family, and realising he valued his daughters connection to family above his politics. I thought his struggle with losing himself was interesting as a nod to parents putting their wants aside to help their children, not a way to nod to him losing those beliefs completely. But interesting to listen to a different interpretation of his character arc
I have a character that has mood swings, but early on the reader is made aware of the fact. So he’s low energy versus rapid energy and speech, or overly happy. But he’s still true to character.
Awesome analysis of character voice, I love your examples. I had a good think about Branson's character development after watching this and realized it's more than his beliefs, it's is whole cultural identity as an Irishman from 1912. He literally became 'English' which is a completely different culture and even worse, a culture that colonized and oppressed Ireland which is what the conflict in 1916 (the Easter Rising) was all about. He wouldn't have changed like this, no one completely loses their cultural identity, accent and core political beliefs. In fact making him out as a 'troublemaker' as oppose to having a valid perspective was cultural appropriation. Now when I watch Downtown Abbey I have a much deeper awareness of how it is culturally offensive! ... They did a good job on portraying English nobility of that time, maybe they should have dug deeper and researched the Irish point of view?!? It's a great deal more than just a class perspective.
In between Winter Soldier and Civil War, there were a city dropped on civilians and civilian Wakandans killed mistakenly by Wanda. I think that would change one's outlook. Some of the others are stubbornly remaining unaffected by those events.
Great examples of characters who become ooc to the point it drove me crazy and i felt betrayed deeply and the point in the story it happened: Thor -Ragnarok Loki - Ragnarok Luke Skywalker - ep8 Han Solo - ep7 Leia - ep 7 Ahsoka Tano - Ahsoka Sabin Wren - Ahsoka Obi-wan Kenobi - Kenobi Boba Fett - Book of Boba Aang- LoK Katara - LoK Toph - LoK Galadriel - RoP Elrond - RoP Bucky - Civil War Natasha - CW And. Actually, last but not least, Captain America. Because that guy never followed a freaking rule in his life before he came out of the ice and suddenly was a "rule keeper."
I disagree with the Natasha part. I think it made perfect sense for her to sign the accords at first. Her line, "if we have one hand on the wheel we'll still have some control" really points this out. She's willing to switch sides when backed into a corner. She sees the writing on the wall for the avengers so makes the choice that will give her the most freedom. She did the same when Clint caught her during her red room days. She turned on the red room and joined shield. Do we honestly believe that was the first interaction she had with shield? They're not gonna send Clint to take out some random assassin that hasn't been causing them trouble. She was an active threat to them and didn't see them as some better group to work for. And when she was put in a corner and given an out, she took it. She has no company loyalty. And that showed in the first avengers movie. When she interrogated Loki, "Regimes fall every day. I try not to cry about it; I'm Russian." I know she was misleading Loki, but I don't think she was lying. The best lies are the ones mixed with truth and she wanted Loki to believe her, and he did. Do we think Loki can't tell when someone is lying to him? He didn't think she was because she was being honest. She cares about Clint and she doesn't have any loyalty to any company maybe even to any person. She left and completely forgot about her own sister to save herself after all. Even with Clint she describes it as owing a debt, because "love is for children." And in winter soldier we see the tension with her not being able to trust and not being able to have her friends trust her because she's shown to have no loyalty. And that's what makes her going against the accords so impactful, because it shows that she now has developed a loyalty to someone. Specifically her friend Steve, who she even goes to to make sure he's not alone at his sweetheart's funeral. Going out of her way to be there for her friend. Hey: friends! She actually has friends now! She didn't want them to be caught as criminals and she was willing to go on the run for them. Something she'd never have done before. That's some character growth!
I thought Caps voice really did change at the very end. I never thought he'd be so willing to leave Bucky, but he was which just threw me off and made be have a disconnect.
I think Tom Branson's change happened very naturally based on the new reality he was exposed to. He also matured and learned to love his wife's family. He learned to respect them. He never lost his personality, he just matured his ideas. That is what happens when you get older. I loved that character the most BECAUSE of his changes. I thought it was very well made.
I couldn't watch any more Mission Impossible after they made Mr Phelps the bad guy. I watched the weekly series as a child when Peter Graves played Mr Phelps. He would never have gone rogue or done anything bad. I was disgusted.
I completely agree about Tom in Downton Abbey. At some point, and I'm sorry to write this, but he seemed like a simpering idiot. His character arc had more to do with the writer's pro-monarchy, pro-aristocracy outlook than staying true to a character. Fellowes was speaking to current events in the UK and his own political beliefs. He didn't want a character to say anything that seemed to question a monarchy that's currently in question. The outcome was that Tom's story just died. He slipped into the background as a cheerleader.
Huh, I didn't feel that way about Bronson at all. I just figured it made sense for his views to soften as he bacemae part of an upper-class family and realised they're all human beings, and that their family in general were not really so bad.
Branson represents several things in Downton Abbey. He is the idealistic reader/viewer, he is the change that is coming for the feudal system (a communist even), in his relationship with Sybil (a name that brings in many connotations), he represents how some of the aristocracy of the time felt about their serfs, but it only served to continue the system, pulling young Branson into the aristocratic fold. By the end, he is thoroughly corrupted (as were we), which is exactly what happened to many that tried to change the system from the inside. In the end of course neither love would be able to change the outcome of the story. The two-pronged attack from first capitalism and then communism (WW1 and WW2) put an end to feudalism....at least until modern techno-feudalism. I don't think Branson is a good example of what you are trying to explain. Branson needed to go through the changes he did and end up as he did. They didn't mess this up, the writer was spot on. Branson is the cautionary tale in the story. It is not a weak point, it is the entire point. We happen to be at the anniversary of the Long March in China. These were the communists doing the fighting, while the "Branson"s of the world were sipping sherry and giving lip service to the fight. There are some lessons to be learned here for my more liberal leftist cousins on what it might take to beat fascism, a far more formidable opponent than feudalism. A great example of what you are looking for would be the Netflix series A Daughter from Another Mother, where halfway through the series, they change both of the main characters into fundamentally different people.
Abby, I love your videos. To the Black Widow point. What I got out of her was an understanding of who she was. She came from a regime of total control. Being rescued from this nightmare by Hawkeye, who represented a new start, she finally had control over her own movements -within reason - as we all do. And now, she's seeing she's going to lose everything to someone who wants to totally control her every move. Something she fought hard to leave and stay away from. So, watching her body language, to me was not an issue. She was taken by surprise by those she started to trust. So she was in familiar, but unfamiliar territory. So to me, this flowed naturally. :)
I think you misread Natasha's backstop. She's not a soldier like Steve is. She's a survivor. She goes through an identity crises in Winter Soldier, but her core strength is compartmentization. She's always true to who she needs to be at that moment. That's why she wants one hand on the wheel. Her sticking it to whatever security council at the end of Winter Soldier was a pivotal moment of the spy with secrets exposing everything. But it's a moment of truth, not defiance. Her meek acquiesce to accepting the Accords allows her to continue as a spy. If she rejects the Accords she's cut off from intel, which is what she needs in order to successfully be a spy. I get that her voice is diminished in that moment and is disappointing. But she's a spy. She adapts to situations to survive. She's also still stuck not knowing who she really is, lost in the deluge of lies she has to wade through. Also in Winter Soldier the perceived loss of Nick Fury in Winter Soldier and the revelation SHIELD was a HYDRA lie forced Natasha to create a new identity. All her lies came crashing down and she no longer had a point of stability from which her falsehoods could branch from. So she latched on to Steve Rogers. She molded herself anew off his opinion of her. But she wasn't done baking yet. In Black Widow she was able to reconcile the lie of her family unit with her love for her sister. The two things can both be true without it being a contradiction. But Steve giving her the Friend identity was also why she so easily flipped sides in Civil War to help Steve as much as she'd do anything to help Nick Fury. She has loyalty to people, not concepts. Anyway, great video. Thank you!!
It appears that finding character voice involves a lot of assumptions, stereotyping, and drawing on your own expectations. Using such sources sounds a bit dangerous in the currently vocal social environment where "sensitivity editors" and such are recommended.
@@heavenonearth3316 I do not disagree. In reality, we always start with stereotypes when we meet--or imagine--someone new. The trick seems to be that one needs to let that person then show, by word and action, which parts apply and which parts must be shed. The worst thing you can do is "freeze" them with that stereotype (at least in my highly flawed opinion). Indeed, I propose that one reason that eye witness testimony is so flawed is that prompt stereotypes are confused with immediate observation (a possible story angle?). The problem arises with imagined characters. We built the stereotype and We built the reasons. Not infrequently, the cause/effect chain that we imagine has little substance in reality. Instead, the chain reflects what we think we have learned from experience and what we think passes as logical. Authors can fall back on various psychological profile methods, but it is interesting how few of them actually encompass aberrant behaviors and outright mental illness. Even the available profiling systems are not without conflict. Somehow, we must flesh out the character. Do not be surprised if a reader is inadvertently offended.
With Branson, I don't have an issue with the change he went through. His initial character was almost entirely focused on the class divide, but then he falls in love and joins the class he's always resented. That's a double shock to the system - starting with "how could I love someone from that class" - and he naturally begins (if slowly) to question his beliefs about the upper class. With time, he finds that they're just people, and begins to fit in. He can't really continue to rail against the class divide at that point - if he does, he's hypocrite, collaborating with the enemy. Some characters would feel that way, but not all. He's really not that much of a firebrand, or he'd have been out in the streets protesting instead of chauffeuring for the richest family in the district. So he abandons his class-based views. But you were right, I think, when you mentioned his passivity in the later seasons. He's lost his cause, and has nothing to fill that void. Not surprising if he becomes passive in that situation.
the first show i was thinking about with this topic was game of thrones , and i don't think i even have to mention the characters that changed in the last few seasons and especially in the last season Tyrian , John snow , Jamie they all changed more than too much , it damaged the show deeply .
I kept thinking of Sansa Stark throughout this video. Her arc is so intriguing, as she adopted the outer appearance of strong women around her until she became a strong woman herself. She goes through this harrowing journey only for the Hound to make a stupid remark about Ramsey "breaking her in" and she's just basically "oh well I'm stronger for that now. C'est la vie.". I'm sorry, WHAT? She should've backhanded him, right then and there. And her pettiness toward Daenerys was so out of left field! They made her... well, basic! I could chalk this up to the writers not having a woman on their team and they don't know how to write SA survivors, but the "my trauma made me stronger" trope is so tired!
I will tell you the worst. I read all the Harry Potter books to my kids (over and over) when they were growing up. I even figured out that Snape had been in love with Lily before the seventh book came out. Then came Harry Potter and the Cursed Child. Harry's character changed completely. Now I know that he was grown up, that he had kids, and that he had great notoriety by the time the Cursed Child story came out, but I just could not see him treating Professor McGonagall or his child the way he did. It just didn't fit well. Even Hermione, doing his work for him was an issue. She rarely did his homework for him, why would she do his actual work for him and why would he let her? I didn't like it at all. I felt like the kids in those books and movies were my kids, I knew them so well.
Good advice, but as a writer, I have to disagree with your point on personality. Personality changes from day to day for everyone. If a character goes through major changes and their personality doesn't change, it's as though those events haven't changed them or developed them at all. For instance, I have a character who, when he is with his best friend and blood brother, he's childlike and, at times, practically a clown. When he loses that friend in a terrible incident, there is _no way_ he would remain as such. That friend is what made him love life, and now he's gone. If he remained childlike and clownish, _that_ would be out of character. NOTE: this does not mean I think you're wrong. Art is subjective, and everyone is going to basically "do their thing" a different way. I learned a few things, and I agreed with other things you guys said, but I needed to step in and make my own point. As always, thanks for sharing your advice.
So interesting to read everyone's differing thoughts on Natasha. I think her stance on the peace treaty was totally in character because she is the ultimate adapter. Constantly changing according to what is happening around her and how she can best help. She kind of lives in the gray, rarely choosing sides. Even as an avenger, there are times when she rebels against what Cap asks to do what she or Nick Fury think she should do. I do agree, though, that she doesn't sound like herself in that scene. I think she would be more forceful about what she thinks and why. Because she is a very decisive person and doesn't hesitate
Not sure if this was mentioned, but AI tools like ChatGPT can be great at least for inspiration, at least in theory. I haven't actually done anything that shows how this would work in practice.
So, you're saying it's better to never change your characters' personalities and beliefs? Better for what? Sales? Because artistically, it's absolutely the other way around.
I'm not finishing the video solet for the fact that you guys cannot get to the point. So much rambling on telling us what we will find in your video but 3 minutes in and I have yet to hear any of the stuff. Why tell me what I'll find and not just start telling me the information
TIMESTAMPS: 0:00 INTRODUCTION 03:23 - 1: BELIEFS 14:50 - 2: PERSONALITY 24:32 - 3: BACKSTORY In case that helps. But I understand what you mean; their style is very conversational to fill up a podcast.
Best strong character voice you've ever read/watched - GO! 💫
Percy Jackson
Bartimaeus from Jonathan Stroud's The Bartimaeus Trilogy.
Hagrid from Harry Potter
Gkar or Londo from Babylon 5.
Haymitch - Hunger Games series
I love watching thousands of videos on character voice but never writing my characters
I get that. I consume tons of stuff on the craft of writing, but at some point you gotta sit down and write.
We must be related
@@FeministCatwoman this would make everyone in the world related. More than they already are at least
Procrastination. It's a way for your brain to feel productive without writing. Well, it happens to all of us ig.
Same...
I love that you admit that people *can* change radically, but warn that doing so might lose your audience's connection with the character. Good distinction
I know right! But by the way, if you do it right, your audience will still have that connection, because they've followed along on the journey that caused the change.
This was very helpful. I do disagree with your take on the Tom character in Downton Abbey. People do change that much. He fell in love with his wife's family and they became his family. In later seasons when he and Mary teamed up, Tom was very influential in the expansion of Downton in the farming community. His core values were still there but with maturity he realized he wasn't going to get things done through anger. One of my favorite things about his character was that he had this wonderful sense of humor that could finally come out.
I agree. It wasn't a Revenge of the Sith speed change. It happened gradually, and each step of Tom's change of perspective appears in front of us. I would also argue the theme of Downtown Abbey is change, and adapting to your changing community as time goes by. Tom does exactly that.
Absolutely agree. Thank you for taking the time 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
I love when your character drives a plot because it's really fun to watch. You're like "oh wait, he should be doing that" but then everything is ABSOLUTELY different
What do you do if you have already written the main aspects of the plot and are still trying to figure out exactly who the characters are and what kind of dialogue they might have with each other? I'm trying to write a female character as one of the main characters and romantic tension dialogue with the main character whilst making her a unique individual character. I think she will express herself through her main strengths - caring, nurturing, feminine energy and weaknesses - loss, grief, loneliness, anger at her losing her family and old way of life and see how that might interact with the main character's strengths - logic, valour, justice, physical coordination and weaknesses - avoidance, anxious, slight awkwardness, not yet ready for leadership and try to show how they help each other realise their potential, help each other along the way and where they clash. I'm much better at writing action than dialogue so I'll probably mix a lot of the dialogue in with the action.
@@fireblade2681 sometimes I use dolls (I made them out of wire so they don't even have faces so they can be anyone) . Just "playing" with them like as in childhood I can imagine dialogues my characters have, their interaction, whole parts of the plot
@@Le_soleil_brille Thanks, I'm also going to write back stories which won't make it into the book so that I can understand my characters better, then I should be able to predict what they will say and how they will act better.
@@fireblade2681 wow, that's interesting, thanks for the idea
Personalities actually really can change dramatically in reality. Our relationships and experiences, over time, can cause changes in personality. However, I agree that, for the purpose of worrying, consistency in personality is huge. If a character's personality must change, we need to see the progression and the steps that lead to that change.
I think they can even change drastically but only after a huge event, like a trauma, another character's dead or something similar that created that change. It cannot be: Oh I woke up totally different this morning and that's it. They need to have some motivations for those changes.
Loved this video, this could be just me being a Natasha fan, but her arc made sense to me. The things I feel like she values the most are doing the right thing, her friends, and her freedom. Her making that choice is really to me preserving all of that. Signing the treaty keeps her off of the governments bad side, as I’m not pursuing her, especially in a situation where they do feel guilty for some of the things they caused. We know she already wants to wipe out red from her ledger, so potentially adding to it would be the last thing she wants to do. Lastly I think her desire to keep everyone together is the biggest driver, this is her family and she wants to keep them together at all costs. In a deleted scene it showcases that, and if following the rules was at first what she thought could keep them together I think she would’ve. It could’ve definitely been better executed, especially with internal conflict but that’s just my thinking!
I agree
I think look at the situation too. Characters speak and behave differently depending on who they are with, how they feel at the moment, what they want to get from other people.
Ugggghhh I hate how underrated you two are 😭💕. Thanks for the golden advice as usual, I actually really needed this video rn
Hi Kate and Abbie! I just wanted to tell you that you are two of the people who inspire me the most, both in writing and in life. I love how kind but professionally you teach us and help us to improve! I never thought that I would write so much at 15 years old, living in Portugal, as I do when I started. And just want you to know that you are the reason I improved my writing and the reason I go back to it even when I am somehow unmotivated. Merry Christmas for Portugal!
Great episode, as always! I had to laugh at the bit about the character taking things in a different direction when you let them have a consistent voice. The villain in my WIP is 100% like that. Every scene he is in, he takes it a direction I was not expecting it to go!
I have the same experience with one of my characters who keeps asking questions about subjects the other characters weren't so interested in... Resulted in me having to cut a lot off excessive dialogue lol
Great video! You should do one about doing effective research for a story (without getting carried away or overwhelmed with too much information that makes it hard to start actually writing) if you have any tips for that 😅
I have thrown away outlines as character progression and voice have derailed my best laid plans. Thankful that there's a resource like this to help edit while I work.
I just finished Downton for the first time and I ABSOLUTELY agree about Tom’s character change. The other characters were always telling him, “Do it for Sybil. What would Sybil want.” But Sybil would have never wanted him to abandon his true self and cast aside his beliefs.
Not to cast aside his beliefs, but she absolutely would want to feel like she makes a difference in his life and has the power to cheer him up. If she's normal.
Going with the beliefs, kinda like Eren from attack on titan. Spoilers ahead **
Erens beliefs always included freedom for himself and others like him inside the walls. He always believed he deserved to be in the world.
So when zeke believes euthanasia is the best way to rid the world of their bloodline and Eren agrees, that was very out of character for him. But at this point in the story there’s a time and setting skip. We see Eren acting way different and very jaded. so we are stuck wondering what happened to change his beliefs to agree with such a plan?
Then we find he was just using zeke and pretending to agree with his plan. So we totally see his character voice. Just my little aha moment about character voices
Yes, thank you for bringing up Poldark! It started off so strong… I kind of want to pretend the later seasons don’t exist…
Watching this video made me reflect a lot on my issues with one of my favorites stories I’ve ever seen, Attack on Titan. That story does something in which we stop seeing the POV of the main character Eren after a certain point and we sometimes get a couple glimpses of his inner thoughts, but only at the very very end do we see again his real voice. It just makes it jarring because we spend a considerable portion of the story seeing his voice through other people’s perspectives while he is putting on this fake persona, and that disconnect really makes the whole story a bit harder to enjoy at some points
You guys are so awesome! A dynamic collaboration between you will be so amazing
Reall helpful points, although I don't agree with Tom as an example. I think he matured into new beliefs by living without his wife and daughters family, and realising he valued his daughters connection to family above his politics. I thought his struggle with losing himself was interesting as a nod to parents putting their wants aside to help their children, not a way to nod to him losing those beliefs completely. But interesting to listen to a different interpretation of his character arc
I have a character that has mood swings, but early on the reader is made aware of the fact. So he’s low energy versus rapid energy and speech, or overly happy. But he’s still true to character.
Awesome analysis of character voice, I love your examples. I had a good think about Branson's character development after watching this and realized it's more than his beliefs, it's is whole cultural identity as an Irishman from 1912. He literally became 'English' which is a completely different culture and even worse, a culture that colonized and oppressed Ireland which is what the conflict in 1916 (the Easter Rising) was all about. He wouldn't have changed like this, no one completely loses their cultural identity, accent and core political beliefs. In fact making him out as a 'troublemaker' as oppose to having a valid perspective was cultural appropriation. Now when I watch Downtown Abbey I have a much deeper awareness of how it is culturally offensive! ... They did a good job on portraying English nobility of that time, maybe they should have dug deeper and researched the Irish point of view?!? It's a great deal more than just a class perspective.
I love this! Amazing examples! Thank you for breaking this down so well :D
In between Winter Soldier and Civil War, there were a city dropped on civilians and civilian Wakandans killed mistakenly by Wanda. I think that would change one's outlook. Some of the others are stubbornly remaining unaffected by those events.
Great examples of characters who become ooc to the point it drove me crazy and i felt betrayed deeply and the point in the story it happened:
Thor -Ragnarok
Loki - Ragnarok
Luke Skywalker - ep8
Han Solo - ep7
Leia - ep 7
Ahsoka Tano - Ahsoka
Sabin Wren - Ahsoka
Obi-wan Kenobi - Kenobi
Boba Fett - Book of Boba
Aang- LoK
Katara - LoK
Toph - LoK
Galadriel - RoP
Elrond - RoP
Bucky - Civil War
Natasha - CW
And. Actually, last but not least, Captain America. Because that guy never followed a freaking rule in his life before he came out of the ice and suddenly was a "rule keeper."
Writing video with black widow in the thumbnail? Count me in!!
I disagree with the Natasha part. I think it made perfect sense for her to sign the accords at first. Her line, "if we have one hand on the wheel we'll still have some control" really points this out. She's willing to switch sides when backed into a corner. She sees the writing on the wall for the avengers so makes the choice that will give her the most freedom.
She did the same when Clint caught her during her red room days. She turned on the red room and joined shield. Do we honestly believe that was the first interaction she had with shield? They're not gonna send Clint to take out some random assassin that hasn't been causing them trouble. She was an active threat to them and didn't see them as some better group to work for. And when she was put in a corner and given an out, she took it. She has no company loyalty.
And that showed in the first avengers movie. When she interrogated Loki, "Regimes fall every day. I try not to cry about it; I'm Russian." I know she was misleading Loki, but I don't think she was lying. The best lies are the ones mixed with truth and she wanted Loki to believe her, and he did. Do we think Loki can't tell when someone is lying to him? He didn't think she was because she was being honest. She cares about Clint and she doesn't have any loyalty to any company maybe even to any person. She left and completely forgot about her own sister to save herself after all. Even with Clint she describes it as owing a debt, because "love is for children."
And in winter soldier we see the tension with her not being able to trust and not being able to have her friends trust her because she's shown to have no loyalty.
And that's what makes her going against the accords so impactful, because it shows that she now has developed a loyalty to someone. Specifically her friend Steve, who she even goes to to make sure he's not alone at his sweetheart's funeral. Going out of her way to be there for her friend.
Hey: friends! She actually has friends now! She didn't want them to be caught as criminals and she was willing to go on the run for them. Something she'd never have done before. That's some character growth!
I thought Caps voice really did change at the very end. I never thought he'd be so willing to leave Bucky, but he was which just threw me off and made be have a disconnect.
I think Tom Branson's change happened very naturally based on the new reality he was exposed to. He also matured and learned to love his wife's family. He learned to respect them. He never lost his personality, he just matured his ideas. That is what happens when you get older.
I loved that character the most BECAUSE of his changes. I thought it was very well made.
I agree.
I couldn't watch any more Mission Impossible after they made Mr Phelps the bad guy. I watched the weekly series as a child when Peter Graves played Mr Phelps. He would never have gone rogue or done anything bad. I was disgusted.
I can't understand why dont have subtitles? try to be inclusive, thank you!
Completely random thought: Abby's cup reminds me of a unicorn.
I completely agree about Tom in Downton Abbey. At some point, and I'm sorry to write this, but he seemed like a simpering idiot. His character arc had more to do with the writer's pro-monarchy, pro-aristocracy outlook than staying true to a character. Fellowes was speaking to current events in the UK and his own political beliefs. He didn't want a character to say anything that seemed to question a monarchy that's currently in question. The outcome was that Tom's story just died. He slipped into the background as a cheerleader.
Great content as always!
Huh, I didn't feel that way about Bronson at all. I just figured it made sense for his views to soften as he bacemae part of an upper-class family and realised they're all human beings, and that their family in general were not really so bad.
Branson represents several things in Downton Abbey. He is the idealistic reader/viewer, he is the change that is coming for the feudal system (a communist even), in his relationship with Sybil (a name that brings in many connotations), he represents how some of the aristocracy of the time felt about their serfs, but it only served to continue the system, pulling young Branson into the aristocratic fold. By the end, he is thoroughly corrupted (as were we), which is exactly what happened to many that tried to change the system from the inside. In the end of course neither love would be able to change the outcome of the story. The two-pronged attack from first capitalism and then communism (WW1 and WW2) put an end to feudalism....at least until modern techno-feudalism.
I don't think Branson is a good example of what you are trying to explain. Branson needed to go through the changes he did and end up as he did. They didn't mess this up, the writer was spot on. Branson is the cautionary tale in the story. It is not a weak point, it is the entire point.
We happen to be at the anniversary of the Long March in China. These were the communists doing the fighting, while the "Branson"s of the world were sipping sherry and giving lip service to the fight. There are some lessons to be learned here for my more liberal leftist cousins on what it might take to beat fascism, a far more formidable opponent than feudalism.
A great example of what you are looking for would be the Netflix series A Daughter from Another Mother, where halfway through the series, they change both of the main characters into fundamentally different people.
Good advice. I wonder how you would handle voices that aren’t as comfortable as your family.
That guy from Downtown Abbey went from being a protagonist to an NPC real quick...
Abby,
I love your videos. To the Black Widow point. What I got out of her was an understanding of who she was. She came from a regime of total control. Being rescued from this nightmare by Hawkeye, who represented a new start, she finally had control over her own movements -within reason - as we all do. And now, she's seeing she's going to lose everything to someone who wants to totally control her every move. Something she fought hard to leave and stay away from. So, watching her body language, to me was not an issue. She was taken by surprise by those she started to trust. So she was in familiar, but unfamiliar territory.
So to me, this flowed naturally. :)
I think you misread Natasha's backstop. She's not a soldier like Steve is. She's a survivor. She goes through an identity crises in Winter Soldier, but her core strength is compartmentization. She's always true to who she needs to be at that moment. That's why she wants one hand on the wheel.
Her sticking it to whatever security council at the end of Winter Soldier was a pivotal moment of the spy with secrets exposing everything. But it's a moment of truth, not defiance. Her meek acquiesce to accepting the Accords allows her to continue as a spy. If she rejects the Accords she's cut off from intel, which is what she needs in order to successfully be a spy.
I get that her voice is diminished in that moment and is disappointing. But she's a spy. She adapts to situations to survive. She's also still stuck not knowing who she really is, lost in the deluge of lies she has to wade through.
Also in Winter Soldier the perceived loss of Nick Fury in Winter Soldier and the revelation SHIELD was a HYDRA lie forced Natasha to create a new identity. All her lies came crashing down and she no longer had a point of stability from which her falsehoods could branch from. So she latched on to Steve Rogers. She molded herself anew off his opinion of her. But she wasn't done baking yet. In Black Widow she was able to reconcile the lie of her family unit with her love for her sister. The two things can both be true without it being a contradiction. But Steve giving her the Friend identity was also why she so easily flipped sides in Civil War to help Steve as much as she'd do anything to help Nick Fury. She has loyalty to people, not concepts.
Anyway, great video. Thank you!!
It appears that finding character voice involves a lot of assumptions, stereotyping, and drawing on your own expectations. Using such sources sounds a bit dangerous in the currently vocal social environment where "sensitivity editors" and such are recommended.
Stereotypes arent a bad place to start as long as you build a character beyond them and show why they're like that.
@@heavenonearth3316 I do not disagree. In reality, we always start with stereotypes when we meet--or imagine--someone new. The trick seems to be that one needs to let that person then show, by word and action, which parts apply and which parts must be shed. The worst thing you can do is "freeze" them with that stereotype (at least in my highly flawed opinion). Indeed, I propose that one reason that eye witness testimony is so flawed is that prompt stereotypes are confused with immediate observation (a possible story angle?).
The problem arises with imagined characters. We built the stereotype and We built the reasons. Not infrequently, the cause/effect chain that we imagine has little substance in reality. Instead, the chain reflects what we think we have learned from experience and what we think passes as logical. Authors can fall back on various psychological profile methods, but it is interesting how few of them actually encompass aberrant behaviors and outright mental illness. Even the available profiling systems are not without conflict. Somehow, we must flesh out the character. Do not be surprised if a reader is inadvertently offended.
The way Kate looks at Abbie 😢
With Branson, I don't have an issue with the change he went through. His initial character was almost entirely focused on the class divide, but then he falls in love and joins the class he's always resented. That's a double shock to the system - starting with "how could I love someone from that class" - and he naturally begins (if slowly) to question his beliefs about the upper class. With time, he finds that they're just people, and begins to fit in. He can't really continue to rail against the class divide at that point - if he does, he's hypocrite, collaborating with the enemy. Some characters would feel that way, but not all. He's really not that much of a firebrand, or he'd have been out in the streets protesting instead of chauffeuring for the richest family in the district. So he abandons his class-based views. But you were right, I think, when you mentioned his passivity in the later seasons. He's lost his cause, and has nothing to fill that void. Not surprising if he becomes passive in that situation.
the first show i was thinking about with this topic was game of thrones , and i don't think i even have to mention the characters that changed in the last few seasons and especially in the last season Tyrian , John snow , Jamie they all changed more than too much , it damaged the show deeply .
I kept thinking of Sansa Stark throughout this video. Her arc is so intriguing, as she adopted the outer appearance of strong women around her until she became a strong woman herself. She goes through this harrowing journey only for the Hound to make a stupid remark about Ramsey "breaking her in" and she's just basically "oh well I'm stronger for that now. C'est la vie.".
I'm sorry, WHAT? She should've backhanded him, right then and there. And her pettiness toward Daenerys was so out of left field! They made her... well, basic!
I could chalk this up to the writers not having a woman on their team and they don't know how to write SA survivors, but the "my trauma made me stronger" trope is so tired!
okay but does anyone know what Kate's middle name is? For some reason it's driving me nuts >.
I will tell you the worst. I read all the Harry Potter books to my kids (over and over) when they were growing up. I even figured out that Snape had been in love with Lily before the seventh book came out. Then came Harry Potter and the Cursed Child. Harry's character changed completely. Now I know that he was grown up, that he had kids, and that he had great notoriety by the time the Cursed Child story came out, but I just could not see him treating Professor McGonagall or his child the way he did. It just didn't fit well. Even Hermione, doing his work for him was an issue. She rarely did his homework for him, why would she do his actual work for him and why would he let her? I didn't like it at all. I felt like the kids in those books and movies were my kids, I knew them so well.
Good advice, but as a writer, I have to disagree with your point on personality. Personality changes from day to day for everyone. If a character goes through major changes and their personality doesn't change, it's as though those events haven't changed them or developed them at all. For instance, I have a character who, when he is with his best friend and blood brother, he's childlike and, at times, practically a clown. When he loses that friend in a terrible incident, there is _no way_ he would remain as such. That friend is what made him love life, and now he's gone. If he remained childlike and clownish, _that_ would be out of character.
NOTE: this does not mean I think you're wrong. Art is subjective, and everyone is going to basically "do their thing" a different way. I learned a few things, and I agreed with other things you guys said, but I needed to step in and make my own point. As always, thanks for sharing your advice.
So interesting to read everyone's differing thoughts on Natasha. I think her stance on the peace treaty was totally in character because she is the ultimate adapter. Constantly changing according to what is happening around her and how she can best help. She kind of lives in the gray, rarely choosing sides. Even as an avenger, there are times when she rebels against what Cap asks to do what she or Nick Fury think she should do. I do agree, though, that she doesn't sound like herself in that scene. I think she would be more forceful about what she thinks and why. Because she is a very decisive person and doesn't hesitate
Joker:: Why so serious
Not sure if this was mentioned, but AI tools like ChatGPT can be great at least for inspiration, at least in theory. I haven't actually done anything that shows how this would work in practice.
So, you're saying it's better to never change your characters' personalities and beliefs? Better for what? Sales? Because artistically, it's absolutely the other way around.
JK Rowling was good at this
Yes. It was so easy to read a scene with multiple characters. You always knew who was talking because their “voices” were so well done.
I'm not finishing the video solet for the fact that you guys cannot get to the point. So much rambling on telling us what we will find in your video but 3 minutes in and I have yet to hear any of the stuff. Why tell me what I'll find and not just start telling me the information
TIMESTAMPS:
0:00 INTRODUCTION
03:23 - 1: BELIEFS
14:50 - 2: PERSONALITY
24:32 - 3: BACKSTORY In case that helps. But I understand what you mean; their style is very conversational to fill up a podcast.
Y'all look nothing alike.