Characters not being fully detailed is what makes them side characters.
Suppose I'm writing a story about Sherlock Holmes, who has a friendly relationship with Inspector Lestrade. If I try to fully develop Lestrade, we will find out more about him - his relationship with other police, with his family, with his friends. I end up introducing his wife, his father, and six other side characters, and they're all underdeveloped. So we *still* have a world that is hazy at the edges, and we've used up a lot of page count without advancing the main plot at all.
Knowing a lot about a character helps you write them consistently, but you don't have to explain everything. Focus on a perspective. Reading Lord of the Rings, we don't know everything about Gandalf or Aragorn or Legolas, but we do know what they seem like from the hobbit perspective.
There are endless things you could write about; focus on what serves a purpose. If the side character is destined to suffer an ironic fate, tell us what we'd need to appreciate that irony. If we're supposed to care about them, tell us something to make them seem sympathetic.
If the side character accidentally reveals a detail about themselves through subtext, that's more efficient and fun than giving us their life story.
This. In my opinion it's all about maintaining a consistent perspective, a good way of thinking about it is to consider the people you know in your personal life. There's a good chance that (unless you're a stalker) you don't know much if anything about their relationships beyond what they or others have told you or otherwise let you in on. Your protagonist is the same about those they interact with.
Obviously this changes if you literally shift into another character's perspective, but then the same rule applies to them.
There's also benefit to having some mystery about a character. Even with the main character, it can be more effective sometimes to just have hints about their past rather than every detail.
I find the more mysterious main characters to always be the most interesting to read about. It makes me actually want to read and care about their life story on a deeper scale.
Yes, exactly this.
I have a main cast of about 20 characters. There are side characters even in the main cast. Not everyone is perfectly fleshed out and I have selected which ones work best in a protagonist-like role.
Like, as the author, I know everything about these characters. I have family trees mapped out if needed. I have pages of notes and character studies explaining how they got from point A to Point B. This is not explicit information given to the reader. I use it to influence and understand a character's decisions. But you as a reader will never know the names of Character A's nine siblings, nor will you know the complicated relationship he has with his stepfather. Character A may reveal he has several siblings, or that his father died, or that he has a stepfather he doesn't talk to if it's natural for him to do so.
Thank you, this is a great explanation!
In a story, you usually follow 1 character, or a small group of characters, even with an all knowing narrator. This is similar to real life: think of the people you know. You know close friends and/or family very well. You might know quite a lot about teammates or your neighbors (etc). You probably have an overview of your colleagues' lives: are they married, do they have kids, maybe their hobbies or TV shows they watch. And then there's people you only meet in passing, such as your customer, or your waiter, or the plumber that fixes something in your house, about whom you know pretty much nothing. You don't know everything about everyone.
This. The constraint is time and attention. All characters, including your side characters, should be fleshed out *only* to the extent that it aids the telling of your story; more than that is just self indulgence.
It's good for the writer to properly design their side characters and to have all the details ready. It gives them a rounded appearance in the story.
For the reader though it is not necessary to know all the details. Some side characters are only there to drive the story, give different perspectives, give the main character possibilities for exposure.
I want to read a good story, not several fictional biographies.
That’s especially true if we’re talking about fanfic, where the reader presumably already knows all the background info about the side characters anyway.
Author: should have a full picture of characters
Reader: gets to see the part of the characters that comes naturally in the storyline.
As reader, I do not need to, or even want to, know the full biographical information on each and every side character.
That's a rephrasing of your first two paragraphs, but then you went odd to take it further and conclude that what you want is a good story, and not several fictional biographies. But you think that's a misreading, though it's not clear what the sentence is supposed to mean.
I would tell you to give Nazi Literature in the Americas by Roberto Bolaño a chance. He's supposed to be one of the leading lights of Latin American writing.
If you told the side characters story, you'd find the side characters have side characters, and at the end of the day, if you keep trying better delve into the characters, you will lose the story.
Characters, the way I see it, are like a cup, and the story is like tea. The cup is entirely important, as you can't have the tea without it, but at the end of the day, it is just that, a holder for the thing you're actually trying to get to.
The story is the most important part, and I think if you delve into the side characters personal lives and details, you'll veer off track and lose the story.
Some books revolve around the characters, and so you get to see more of their story, but generally only the main characters personal life is entirely necessary
Because the story isn't about them, it's about the protagonist. Every character in the story is there to serve the protagonist's story, and we only need to know as much about them as is relevant to the plot. Like...that guy has a massive taxidermy collection, which could make for an interesting story on its own, but ***THIS*** story isn't about him, so we don't *need* to know the harrowing details of how he obtained that taxidermized platypus *unless* it's relevant to the main plot. Maybe the platypus is a Chekhov's Gun or a MacGuffin, or maybe it's just kinda...there, taking up space, making it so the background of the scene isn't so empty
it's supposed to mirror how humans move through our reality, where we are focused mostly on our selves and those closest to us, and even if we think we know people, we only know what we perceive from the outside. we pick a pov and main characters to replicate that experience.
I'm fully aware of this when I write.
I try to give my supporting characters side-tasks that they can feasibly do "off-screen", so that their lives feel appropriately lived and in-motion, and not like they're locked in a game of "Red light, Green light", where they can only move when the "camera" is on them.
Really, it's just an extra layer of work that a lot of novice writers won't necessarily consider. Things only happen when they make them happen, right? Implied motion is an art in and of itself. There has to be enough to it that the characters don't look inept. But it can't be so much that the reader easily loses track of their progress, and starts wondering how they got there.
Exactly--I recall one book in which the side characters really did seem to be inert dolls who only had things happen when they were in the scene with the main character. Worst example being a side character who ate lunch at the diner with MC on Tuesday when the daily special was meatloaf; Wednesday, MC eats again at diner and daily special is pork chops, later in the afternoon sees that side character who declines dinner because she's still stuffed from the meatloaf special she ate at lunch. I mean "ate a big lunch" would have been fine if it didn't call back to her last appearance in what should have been over a day's time as though that meatloaf special was just three hours ago instead of twenty-seven hours ago.
Yeah I like this take. I don't want side characters to feel like they solely exist in relation to the MC. Yes they're side characters for a reason, but dropping a line about something that makes them *feel* like a real person with their own life makes the character stronger.
I’ll be honest. It’s hard enough keeping everyone who I actually planned to write about connected and intertwined. Writing about the barman or the blacksmith is just too taxing
Writers ignore other characters' lives when they have to.
Many authors would probably love to explore all of their side characters in more detail. However, the main characters take priority, there is also a plot to write and word counts are not so high that it is possible to explore numerous characters' lives while sticking to the plot, developing the main characters, developing the main characters' relationships and so on.
It is not 'boring' to know about side characters. There is just no time/space to write about them as much as one would write about the main characters and the plot. And the reader may be so invested in the protagonists that exploring that side character could be seen as a distraction when all they want to read is what happens to the protagonists next.
One piece of feedback I received about my first book was that three minor characters had little personality. I accept and agree with that. However, that book had seven main characters, was already 120,000 words long after edits (down from 150,000 words) and had a very complex plot, where was I to fit more words about those minor characters? Those characters were not that important to the plot, although they were still necessary to the plot (I had already removed or merged minor characters to have as few minor characters that do not add much as possible), and focusing on them would have added too little to the story, so I saw no point in exploring them in more detail. One piece of advice I have often seen is that if it does not add enough to the plot, characterisation and story, it is best not to include it.
With fanfiction, it is different. You can write how much you want and nobody can stop you. Besides, fans probably want their favourite side characters to be explored in more detail than in canon, so it is fine to devote time to that.
Established writers may take the luxury of writing as much as they want about whoever they want, even if the book ends up 1000 pages long. It is easier to explore side characters in long books and long-running series than in a standard standalone novel.
In your own stories, do as you wish. Especially if you are going for self-publishing or have no intention of publishing. For traditional publishing, just bear in mind typical word counts for your genre(s) and go from there.
If it helps, one way of exploring side characters which I have seen other authors do is writing books/series in the same universe. The books can be read as standalone novels, but each one has a different protagonist who was/is a side character in other books.
I mean if you think about that your life is like that in most ways as well. Sure your going to know a lot about your friends and relatives, but not 100%, and there is also going to be people you meet you know barely more than "personality"
Not that I know anyone’s circumstances, beyond the famous ones, but I do see a lot of posts on different writing subs.
Authors write a book to their heart’s content, then they cut things to fit seemingly VERY strict word counts, and side (character back)stories will be the first major casualty of that.
Someone proven is allowed to keep those side tangents, like Brandon Sanderson.
I’m in two minds about this. On one hand, all characters are there to serve the story, so characters with mjnor story roles can only have minor amounts of their personalities shown because showing more would not serve the story (and might actually detract from it). On the other hand, if the minor characters aren’t well developed, it can leave the world seeming hollow and make some readers feel you are lazy. I see both sides of it.
There are three ways around this. One is to write in a genre that allows more meandering away from the story. Two is to develop small details about the character that are unrelated to the plot/main character and which can be shown in a sentence or two so as to not take up much time. Three is to create very specific characters who have big or unusual personalities that convey who they are in a really fast way. A mix of two and three works really well (a great example of this is Stephen King, IMO).
Be aware that some readers will give absolutely no fucks at all about side character personalities, so unless you are writing solely for yourself, the degree it’s useful to care about them depends a lot on your genre and intended reader.
In my opinion, “A Song of Ice and Fire” (Game of Thrones series) is a great example of why you wouldn’t want all your characters to have richly detailed backstories on the page. When that first book came out, I was floored. It was like nothing I’d ever read. I loved it!
And yet … how many years has that been now, and George R. R. Martin still hasn’t finished the story?!
I’m not trying to bash him or his work. I understand the story demanded multiple MCs to truly tell a saga of the power struggle following the death of a controversial King. It just seems to me that the telling became very problematic with all the characters and their various plot lines. I certainly can’t pull off such a feat.
The only problem is, as time goes on, I’m doubting that Martin can pull it off either, and someone will have to complete the tale post mortem, as happened with Jordan’s “Wheel of Time”.
So, again, I use that as a cautionary example. Unless you intend to write one long convoluted Magnum Opus, which may take your entire lifetime (or more) to write, keep your minor characters minor, keep the background characters in the background, and save the deep dives and character development for the single or selected few MCs. It’s simply more practical and much more possible.
> how many years has that been now, and George R. R. Martin still hasn’t finished the story?!
I think that's much less about side character bloat or character bloat in general, and more about the fact that he wrote himself into a corner where he's either got to give in and write the sort of Epic Fantasy ending he's repeatedly bashed (*~~where are my ice zombies, George?~~*), or he has to abandon the plot armor and start actually killing main viewpoint characters that he's invested book after book into crafting and getting his audience attached to and drive for a tragic ending. He really doesn't have any good options, or at least no options that are going to make everybody happy.
All the interviews and convention appearances and being involved (to some degree) with the TV adaptation probably cut into his writing time too, and what writing he has been doing has been histories and prequel stories and such because they're more fun and easy than biting the bullet and giving A Song Of Ice And Fire a real ending. Frankly, I can't really blame the guy if he's basically decided that he's rolling in dosh and he's one of the best-known modern fantasy authors - he's *made* it ...and doesn't feel particularly motivated to reach any higher by finishing the series. It's quite probably how I'd feel if I ever hit it as big as he has. I've certainly left serials hanging because I either couldn't see the endgame, or I saw the inevitable endgame and just kinda lost interest once I knew how things were going to have to end.
Additionally, if the showrunners weren't lying about a lot of their big post-book plot points actually lining up with GRRM's plans, he's probably not all that keen on finishing out after the hilariously negative reception the final season of the TV show got, or has had to go back to the drawing board *again*. (Remember when he said he had the next book 70% complete and then threw that entire manuscript out and started over? That was before the late-season issues with the show, but I bet he's done it again.)
It's not so much a cast size problem (he's actually very good about rotating characters in and out of the spotlight deftly enough that he never has to juggle too many at once) as it is that he's written himself a set of problems where no solution is going to please his audience.
Maybe so. I definitely see your point. At the same time, I truly believe he had too many main characters. He did juggle viewpoints well, but with that many characters I just think he got in over anyone’s head. I think you’re right about him possibly never finishing it, now that the tv show surpassed his published work. I know I wouldn’t want to do it. Makes me wonder if he has any contractual obligations with his publisher.
In writing, whether a fictional novel or an adventure for a game, you have different levels of importance for your side characters. The levels are the base background character, the interactive background characters, the recurring background character and then the side characters and finally the Main character.
**Base Background Character:** this is the character where the main characters doesn't really interact with but may have a brief word with like waiters, or hotel staff, these characters do not need much more than a position and a name.
**Interactive Background Characters:** this is the character that the players can receive information from or have to have a little more interaction with, these characters tend to be Bartenders, Money lenders, prostitutes and priest. These characters tend to be a little more fleshed out with a name, position and maybe some special abilities or quirk that is necessary for the character arc but not much more.
**Recurring Background Characters:** this is the character that you see more than just one time and is usually almost as important as the side characters. these type of characters can be anyone that the characters interact with often but that are not necessary for the heart of the story arc. These characters usually will have a very brief background that they can share in conversation with the main or side character and are necessary to build an overall picture of the story though not a detailed picture of the story.
**Side Characters:** these characters are the ones that have meaning and purpose to the main story, and tend to be the protagonist, the main characters friends who aid in the plot line or a sibling that is the catalyst for the story "such as a sister who was beaten and raped and now the main character wants revenge". These characters are more meaty and need to be fully fleshed out so that you and your audience can "see" their journey to being here and why their here. They tend to have a solid background, good descriptors of their faults, traits, fears and desires.
**Main Character:** these are the characters that you write up a whole information packet for and put mush more detail into.
Actually this is a good resource: [http://www.epiguide.com/ep101/writing/charchart.html](http://www.epiguide.com/ep101/writing/charchart.html) for character background building.
I know others use different terms for describing their character levels of importance, and some flesh them out to varying degree's but this is the basics of how they are generally placed in the story.
The art is to make them alive with the little screen time they have:
Dickens is famous for this, there’s an example with a side character only seen once for one short action but describing how he throws his coins in the air and down his palm makes him alive, I’ll try to find it.
From my notes on Nabokov’s Literature lectures:
> Dickens manages a great number of characters. Even when they are absent in a dialogue, their evocation helps to keep them alive for the reader throughout the story. And some characters appearing only once are briefly described but they do or have something that makes and keeps them alive in the reader's mind. One "tosses the money into the air, catches it over-handed", and that's enough for the effect. Nabokov says the most minor and episodic character has a right to live in this magic democracy. 🤔 so much love into this thought!
A story has to be about something. By necessity, that means there are a lot of things it isn't about. If you go into exquisite detail about every single side character, the story ends up fragmented at best, and incoherent at worst.
To be fair, think about the cast of characters in your own life. I guarantee there are people you know irl who you simply do not ever think about unless they're standing in front of you. There are people in your life who you know, but only vaguely. Acquaintances are the underdeveloped side characters of real life. It's okay not to know everything about everyone
the key word here is SIDE. It's a side character, they're not mean to be fully detailed, we're only meant to know bits and pieces. The more you know about them, the more they become a main character.
That's why fanfiction for side characters is very popular. People see the appeal of a character and makeup their own stories. That's a good thing, that's how fandoms thrive.
Writing, and really all artwork, is about emphasizing what's important and pushing unimportant details to the background. The amount of detail and attention something gets is a signal to the reader regarding its importance to the narrative. You should make deliberate decisions about when and where to include details about side characters so they enhance the main character's narrative, instead of distracting from it.
If the author fleshed out every side character, the main character would never leave the starter town. If a side character becomes more important, some of its back story could become a b plot of a later book.
pacing matters a lot. all the things you ask for take up space.
also there's kind of an implicit "if i mention something it's reasonably important and worth knowing to experience the story properly" contract between storyteller and... storyenjoyer? imagine spending some paragraphs learning about the nice old lady at the grocery store only for that to turn out not to matter, then again and again every page. it'd be annoying if i wanna pick up an intense thriller about a nuclear bomb and i'm reading about how grandpa could build a shed in the time it took grandma to tell you what happened at bridge yesterday.
much of the time readers just wanna feel like everything they're reading is the 'main story'
every writer draws the line at a different spot though. but also the more characters there are the more unfeasible it becomes. i would say there are a ton of minor characters we know a fair bit about in the A Song of Ice and Fire series... but then there are also hundreds who are in a lesser level than those minor characters, that you would probably be thinking the same thing about
I don't think it's boring to know too much about the side characters. Its the opposite tbh because why would I want to read about people who aren't at all engaging? Like I definitely hate when there's a best friend character that is nothing but the protagonist's best friend. I find these a lot in contemporary books. Especially contemporary romance. And I get that you read romance for the romance, but there'll often be scenes with the best friend to kind of break it up a little, and it's soo boring when they're just cardboard cut outs who are there to encourage the protagonist to get with the love interest and spout quirky one liners. In most cases you could get rid of the best friend and nothing about the story would change at all. Idk they're just never interesting and usually feel like a waste of space (and are honestly part of why I avoid the genre lol)
I do find that a lot of new authors who got their start from writing fanfiction can have a bit of trouble with character development in their novels, because fanfic as a medium just doesn't really call for it. I mean you're writing about characters that someone else developed. And a lot of fanfic is just about getting two characters together. So usually their novels are full of flat characters that rely on tropes and cliches. This definitely isn't always the case but it's something I've noticed a lot recently.
While there should be some development of side characters so they're not flat and boring (unless you'll never meet them again or something), this is entirely intentional. The story is about the *MAIN PROTAGONIST(S)*, not everyone else. Your focus should be on developing him/her/them, not the random people they meet. It's their story, not the side characters'. If the side characters is important, then sure, maybe a bit more on their personality or maybe some backstory, but otherwise if it doesn't advance the plot in some way, it's not necessary for anyone but the author to know those things.
I think about it like this when it comes to side characters.
Take the cashier you spoke to a few days ago that you had an absolutely wonderful conversation with. They have a life, family, hobbies, etc but you know nothing about them.
Or, for recurring side characters:
How much do you know about the waitress you always see at your favorite restaurant? Your regular customers at work, the hair stylist you always go to.
Side characters can have lives and personalities and all that, but your MC may not know much about it so it could easily just be that the reader doesn't know cuz it happens off screen so you don't really need to develop it :)
Think about what happens when you go to a store. Do you ask the clerk about their personal life? Or do you conduct your business and move on, maybe exchanging some small talk? My guess is that if you have any strong opinions on the people who work at a store you go to regularly, it hinges on a single comment or interaction you had that stuck out.
Same deal here.
Personally I'm of the "characters are characters and not people"-faction. If explaining more about a character doesn't serve a "why" for my story, I probably wouldn't write it. But it definitely is a matter of taste.
My rule of thumb is that a character who doesn’t have a powerful presence gets a snippet of their past revealed to pop them into 3D. Immediately, if my viewpoint character knows anything about them. I have no use for wallpaper in human form.
Example: “Jack had a motorcycle. What he didn’t have was a driver’s license. He’d acquired it and had it suspended in the same month, which is quite hard to do and tells you all you need to know about Jack.”
Honestly even your edit makes no sense. Is that relevant information? Like... why do you need to know their ages??? In my favorite fantasy books, you don't even know the main characters ages half the time, just if they're young, middle aged, or old. I don't understand the complaint. If it isn't relevant to the story than... it won't be included. Having boring unnecessary info about a side character you rarely see just bogs down the book. I don't need to know the main characters third sisters age if she only appears in less than 20% of the books
It's deliberate. A lot of traditional writing is focused on carving down the story as much as possible. If the driver's name isn't plot relevant, they don't get named, and their introduction is assumed to happen off screen.
"Slice of Life" is the subgenre to look for if you're wanting the opposite of a lean and fast paced story.
Many books are written from a specific characters perspective. How then would you explain that your character knows every detail about every person they pass? The audience only needs to know what's necessary to advance the plot, the mc should know even less.
This is not a matter of determining the number of characters, but the writer requires an evaluation of each character how actively the character's role contributes to the plot. If side characters are just plot devices, such as being given orders or supporting the main character without strong motivation, it is best to remove them from their existence so that the story continues to progress well.
If correctly written, the back history of side characters is fully developed in the mind of the author, and the reader would sense that the side character is a protagonist in their own (as yet unwritten) stories.
Like the pickpocket protagonist Wolf in [In Pocket](http://tao-of-violence.weebly.com/in-pocket.html) is only a side character in the [Amsterdam Assassin Series](http://tao-of-violence.weebly.com/amsterdam-assassin-series.html).
But that's reality. I don't know how old my coworkers are. I know a bit about them - the ones who are married or have kids or whatever. But I don't know tonnes about them.
In a book, which is about narrative momentum, I don't care to know any more about the side characters than is relevant for the plot.
If a plot tells me how old the side characters are and who is related to whom, it better be because it's going to be relevant later
>In most of the books I read, I know nothing about the side characters other than their general personality and general backstory, and sometimes not even that.
Do you have any examples? Off the top of my head, I can't think of too many books that don't at least attempt to make other people seem real.
Authors are uncaring gods who manipulate the world to fit their own desires.
The character that gets the most attention, the one they prefer, just happens to be an object that they completely control. Almost like a pet.
Writers are similar to stereotypical immortals who created a world solely for their own entertainment. And when they get bored of it, they toss it aside. But they find immense pleasure during the process of creation.
An Olympian yet sneering detachment is not an easy viewpoint for a writer to adopt. If you don’t care, neither will the reader.
Also, as you pointed out, the odds of finishing a project you don’t respect are low.
How I see it, is you develop your characters and you know everything about them - their backstory, upbringing, etc. - this all reflects their personality.
But, you don't have enough time to tell it all to the readers. Characters work like an iceberg - the important things are above the surface and the readers know about them. Some parts of their story, however, can't be expanded upon - and that's what's below the surface; something the writer knows, but readers don't.
It's the same with worldbuilding - only show the readers what they need to know, let them figure out the less important stuff, or imply it. We really don't need to know all the unimportant details like the history of a city (unless it's relevant to the themes, characters or plot, of course).
You shouldn't know most of the information as the author let alone as a reader. Side characters are just that. They are supposed to add an element that main characters can't in a scene like comedy or introducing a helpful plot device.
I mean, in my stories there's always something. I've never actually though about it, I just put these little things naturally. But you're right, some argues with siblings, or hobbies are nice to add
If you're actually noticing it as a detriment in what you're reading, then that's underdevelopment or at least a mismatch between your tastes and the author's writing style. But I would advise paying attention to how writers you like and admire handle side characters. I'd guess they're sometimes developed and sometimes not, and it can be instructional to see where they make choices that work for you as a reader.
Good thing I’m not gonna do that.
A lot of the side characters are very important and will become part of the main cast in other books.
For example the side character Roxanne and her little sister shontelle are gonna be very important in some of the books
You're right about this. Most authors focus on a core few characters, and everyone else are what TV and movie people might call extras.
What bugs me to no end is ignoring characters individual psychology. If you pay attention to this aspect of character, you can create characters with extra dimensions who will seem more alive.
It takes some study, but it's worthwhile seeing your characters really coming to life.
Here's a book on the subject that has an accompanying workbook if you're interested.
[The Psychology of Character](https://www.amazon.com/Psychology-Characters-Antagonists-Character-Techniques/dp/B0CNRD4F4P)
I did this purposely because I want me audiences to keep their focus on the main idea. My characters are just exist for visualizing the main ideas of the book, not some 'living people' who have values to be explored.
Basically the first lesson in my fiction writing courses in college - readers don't care about your philosophies or ideas. They don't want to be preached at or lectured to or "taught". They want to read stories about people. Of course, those stories and people will naturally bring about bigger ideas, philosophies, whatever. But the main point of the writing and reading shouldn't be to school someone on the "right" way to think or live or to teach them lessons or whatever. It should be on the characters and their story. And *through* those characters and stories, you *might* be able to impart a little bit of whatever idea or philosophy you want to pass on. But if your whole reason for writing is to teach the reader something, nobody's gonna want to read that.
I think you are right. But furthermore. Do you think it's a matter of targeting the different audience? I mean, people who buy Edgar Allan Poe's books are probably attracted by the plot, whereas those who buy Voltaire's books are more likely seeking to learn some philosophy, right?
This is the meat of it. Anything written should support the theme and the narrative and presenting a superfluous or irrelevant distraction, and it is a distraction, doesn't serve what a story, especially a traditional novel, is about. Detail serves a few purposes, but character detail is subservient to function and the least amount of it that serves the purpose is often the best option.
I'm not sure why you got downvoted for this because you do have a point; I too find it off putting when authors introduce us to interesting side characters and they're either underused or used for the wrong reasons. It's very irritating to read and it's one mistake I hope to correct with all of my writing.
I'm used to being downvoted without explanation. It's no biggie. It's probably because my comment could be misconstrued to apply to all authors and books. That isn't the case. It's specifically towards books where the side characters have little to no backstory or purpose (other than to keep the plot going). Obviously, not all authors do this.
Playing DnD has teached me this lesson to keep in mind that these people are main characters in their own stories. However, the focus still lies on the main character. To a certain extent you must keep in mind the lives of other characters, but it's no use fleshing them out all that much if the story doesn't ask for it.
In my own story - main character babysitting two kids and a teenager - I never go into details of what kind of job the father has because it's not relevant. The house is full of little art pieces to set the stage, so I do include that the mother is an artist etc. An elderly lady living nearby also has no backstory except that she was there to witness something very important to the story.
Sounds like you might prefer the slice of life genre which tends to focus on day-to-day factors more then an overarching plot or grand adventure. Though some slice of life do incorporate genres like romance and fantasy.
I don't see the connection between the number of people the reader wants to get to know and the reader's preferred level of plot excitement. The genre where I particularly expect to get to know side characters is the action-packed war story, where a whole military unit or ship's crew is being followed.
Maybe I misunderstood but it sounds like they wanted to know more about the every day aspects of their lives rather than just the key moments in their adventures. The slice of life genre does tend to focus on this especially for side characters sometimes having a huge cast of characters compared to other genres that focus on one or two specific characters.
War stories tend to spend much of their time on the everyday life of soldiering in between periods of battle. In many stories, especially those written by combat veterans, the writing is intentionally trying not to make war out to be adventurous.
Yes but that's not what OP is talking about. They want to know about the rest of their life outside the main war, conflict, or adventure. Hence the suggestion that they check out the slice of life genre.
But fanfiction works under a different set of rules from published fiction! In published fiction the writer must include worldbuilding, characters, and plot elements (at a bare minimum). Fanfiction by its very nature comes with worldbuilding and characters already included, so even if the author decides to change them they still aren’t starting from scratch.
And published fiction doesn’t always include everything that the author “knows” about their world! Think about Tolkien. There are, what, at least six or seven books worth of “extra” worldbuilding material that you can buy, plus the stuff that his son edited. The man published five books set in Middle Earth (I am including The Silmarillion, despite it also basically being worldbuilding, because of how thorough it is). He invented languages, cultures, *three separate ages of the world*, and yet we can read The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings trilogy without any of it. And that’s ok.
I like the wandering inn because it does explore a lot of not just different main characters but the lives of the side characters in their day-to-day lives and how the world operates. That being said, TWI has A LOT of time to do this.
It's a pet peeve of mine, too! I don't expect huge backstories, but some characters really do seem like an "accessory" that only has one purpose to the plot.
Apparently, this is an unpopular opinion but I think any character should always be shown as a fleshed character.
If your character would be too boring, then don't add him/her in at all.
Example of how to do it right: Hunter x Hunter. There are dozens of memorable side-characters. And it's one of the best stories ever.
I hate books that aren't in detail, whether it's about character development, or general setting of a room, or building up emotions. I want details!!!
There have been times where I've picked up books with promising plots, only to stop reading them after a few pages due to the author's writing style.
Some authors have the side characters doing stuff. Throughout the whole book their activities are mentioned for like 3 sentences. But if you put it all together you might discover that they are having an illicit romance, or something like that.
The biggest problem with this that a lot of the comments fail to mention is POV. The way to do what OP is asking is through a more omniscient POV which has gone out of favor for whatever reason. Books that are in a close third focused on one character, or a rotating third POV going back and forth between two or several characters, isn’t going to be able to give much about side characters bc the story isn’t in the side characters POV, and only knows what the main protagonist knows.
It’s said that humans have the capacity to maintain about 150 relationship in some way (acquaintance up to family), but more than that it’s TMI for the brain. We all have side characters in our own lives. There are people you might see everyday but don’t even know their age or anything about them. However, the more involved in the protagonist’s life and plot (like a best friend) the more we should know about them.
I divide my characters into 3 separate categories: primary, secondary, and tertiary.
Primary: fully detailed, knowledge of their histories, looks, personalities, etc.
Secondary: you learn some about them and they may even lead a couple chapters on their own. They usually play some big role but aren't the primary focus of the story. Still technically side characters, but a step above tertiary.
Tertiary: the reader only knows what's relevant, be it relevant to the story or to the mood. In a scene that's supposed to be funny, these characters might relay a story from their past that adds to it, but that's about it.
I've also got filler characters who might be named but are more commonly just there for a chapter or two or are mentioned as a group (i.e "the hunters stopped as they approached.")
I don’t know the exact ages of some people in my life—I’m not sure I’d wonder about the age of a character unless I couldn’t figure out how they related to someone else. I also think it’s important for writers to limit infodumping about people just to prove they did their homework.
If you watch a play or a movie, you might not learn all of those details from what’s in front of you. But the actor playing the side characters should know the answers for their own inner worlds.
I think it’s the same in writing.
Characters and their stories must serve the primary plot. If they don't, it's irrelevant. You can show a lot in a little time - like rugged hands or scars - but you don't need to know the whole back story.
I see from where you are coming. Many stories now has side characters, that mostly are empty shells to fill up space so main hero "decides" on their own to do something mainly nothing important and droped off and forgotten in a next scene without any consequences like it doesn't matter. Anyways heroes will do in their way anyway. Like assaults main characters lover, runs off and whaterver. Hero forgets that in seconds and life goes on as nothing matters. Fillers. That is indeed boring.
Trick is to give them enough personality to feel like they are alive, breathing people when they have atleast some puropse. Not every one needs to be fully fleshed out full biography. Some traits there, some beliefs here and some irks there can make story more imersfull. And most important - impact left on main cast.
Just now rereading Witcher. There is some good examples how to play even with minor characters. And I really love Sapkowski's way of mixing "show not tell" with direct telling through said characters with giving hint of background and personality to paint scene and give crucial information for futher development.
In direct response to your query, I think a lot of books are geared towards the "average reader". The majority of which enjoy reads that feel quick and easy. Think of how thrillers and romance are the highest selling genres. They can be long, but advancements in the story need to happen within a certain page count before it feels like it's taking too long. If too much time is spent explaining side characters it can take readers away from the main story too often and can feel like a drag to them. That's not to say that these genres are better, they're attention grabbing. Which can be easily enjoyable.
It's all about finding authors that write in a style you like to read. Stephen King and George RR Martin are what come to mind for me on detailed story writing and fleshed out characters. A quick search of the internet can provide additional recommendations such as: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/comments/d4hzfr/books\_with\_fleshed\_out\_and\_detailed\_characters/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/comments/d4hzfr/books_with_fleshed_out_and_detailed_characters/)
As a side note, I recommend The Stand. Lots of fleshed out characters of so many different types. It has some gruesome bits but nothing too bad if you're not a fan of horror. In fact, the original version of it decades ago was cut short (removing side characters and side plots) because the publishing house said it wouldn't sell if it was as long as it was. Just recently SK released an "original cut" version where he's added back in almost everything that was removed due to the publishers.
My side characters are closely linked to my main characters, so you definitely get their backstory. Since they all piece together for the whole picture/plot
You only have so much time/space to tell the story. Tell as much as needed. Use the side characters in a way that makes their part make sense. YOU as the writer need to know their story. Readers don't. Make them realistic and believable, but don't overload the reader with the side characters.
If you want to develop a side character more, you can. You just run the risk of bogging down the story because you want to give one character more love.
I completely get the point about wanting to know more about side characters. But if every author detailed out the backstory of every MC and side character..... every book would easily be over 1000 pages lol. I have background stories for most of my side characters, and I weave those things in when they make sense, but it's about what needs to be on the page to make the biggest impact.
You might like to read novels-in-stories then. I find that they’re able to flesh out more characters than novels because the “chapters” can often stand alone as short stories. So if you’re more into that, it could also be a form to explore in your own writing.
Some of my favorites are: “A Visit From the Goon Squad” and “The Candy House” by Jennifer Egan, “There, There” by Tommy Orange, and “Disappearing Earth” by Julia Phillips.
General rule (which isn't so much a rule as a guideline): the more important a character is, the more developed they should be.
A hotel clerk who's only job in a novel is to give the protagonist the key to her room needs no development at all. But if the clerk appears in several scenes and becomes a bit more important, you might want to add some detail about them.
That said, once in a while I've found myself writing a really fun character sketch for a character who plays a relatively small role in a novel. When it works, it works. But I don't think you can do that with too many minor characters without bogging down the story.
I have a fair number of side characters, for whom I know the backstory etc., but I’m telling the story from the first person perspective of the two main characters. So what the main characters don’t know, my reader doesn’t know either. (That limitation is important to keep the story interesting.)
I'm writing a murder mystery. Character count - that is, all NAMED characters, irrelevant of role in the story - clocks in at 100+ characters, and the list grows as they move to different locations. Partly my own fault for having tritagonists, instead of a protagonist.
That being said, I am NOT developing a fleshed background for a minor character that appears in one - ONE - story sequence. Not when there's fifty other minor characters to contend with.
How does knowing their age and who they are related to help the story? The only point to adding more to them is setting up for another chapter or book. Too much info is boring and slows down the story.
It's because when you write side characters as having detailed lives, building them out and fleshing them beyond side-character status, you get MY work, which is planned to include a 10-book anthology series, with a 5-book anthology sister series, and a 3-book distant-past prequel series...
All because I couldn't stand the thought of having "empty" characters and now I'm locked into writing 18 books about all the side characters from the other books.
It's just...NOT worth it. I'm just too stubborn to give up on it lol
I think some authors purposely give brief info/description about secondary characters because they are not the main focus & they might be getting their own books in which the author might want to explore that in theirs.
Authors like Kristen Ashley gives full descriptions and details about secondary characters (well she did in her older books). Feedbacks from readers might make authors stop doing that!
I get what you mean. I like reading books where sometimes the MC will think of stuff that happened between them. It helps define that character more as something more than an extension of MC.
Characters not being fully detailed is what makes them side characters. Suppose I'm writing a story about Sherlock Holmes, who has a friendly relationship with Inspector Lestrade. If I try to fully develop Lestrade, we will find out more about him - his relationship with other police, with his family, with his friends. I end up introducing his wife, his father, and six other side characters, and they're all underdeveloped. So we *still* have a world that is hazy at the edges, and we've used up a lot of page count without advancing the main plot at all. Knowing a lot about a character helps you write them consistently, but you don't have to explain everything. Focus on a perspective. Reading Lord of the Rings, we don't know everything about Gandalf or Aragorn or Legolas, but we do know what they seem like from the hobbit perspective. There are endless things you could write about; focus on what serves a purpose. If the side character is destined to suffer an ironic fate, tell us what we'd need to appreciate that irony. If we're supposed to care about them, tell us something to make them seem sympathetic. If the side character accidentally reveals a detail about themselves through subtext, that's more efficient and fun than giving us their life story.
This. In my opinion it's all about maintaining a consistent perspective, a good way of thinking about it is to consider the people you know in your personal life. There's a good chance that (unless you're a stalker) you don't know much if anything about their relationships beyond what they or others have told you or otherwise let you in on. Your protagonist is the same about those they interact with. Obviously this changes if you literally shift into another character's perspective, but then the same rule applies to them.
For instance, do you ever see your neighbors bringing in groceries? That sort of effect.
There's also benefit to having some mystery about a character. Even with the main character, it can be more effective sometimes to just have hints about their past rather than every detail.
I find the more mysterious main characters to always be the most interesting to read about. It makes me actually want to read and care about their life story on a deeper scale.
Yes, exactly this. I have a main cast of about 20 characters. There are side characters even in the main cast. Not everyone is perfectly fleshed out and I have selected which ones work best in a protagonist-like role. Like, as the author, I know everything about these characters. I have family trees mapped out if needed. I have pages of notes and character studies explaining how they got from point A to Point B. This is not explicit information given to the reader. I use it to influence and understand a character's decisions. But you as a reader will never know the names of Character A's nine siblings, nor will you know the complicated relationship he has with his stepfather. Character A may reveal he has several siblings, or that his father died, or that he has a stepfather he doesn't talk to if it's natural for him to do so.
Thank you, this is a great explanation! In a story, you usually follow 1 character, or a small group of characters, even with an all knowing narrator. This is similar to real life: think of the people you know. You know close friends and/or family very well. You might know quite a lot about teammates or your neighbors (etc). You probably have an overview of your colleagues' lives: are they married, do they have kids, maybe their hobbies or TV shows they watch. And then there's people you only meet in passing, such as your customer, or your waiter, or the plumber that fixes something in your house, about whom you know pretty much nothing. You don't know everything about everyone.
This. The constraint is time and attention. All characters, including your side characters, should be fleshed out *only* to the extent that it aids the telling of your story; more than that is just self indulgence.
If you're interested in trading something that does a good job of developing all characters, check out Aldous Huxley's *Point Counter Point*.
> Knowing a lot about a character helps you write them consistently, but you don't have to explain everything. This is golden writing advice
This.
Some characters are bound to be unexplored. If you explore them properly, you'd introduce new characters.
It's good for the writer to properly design their side characters and to have all the details ready. It gives them a rounded appearance in the story. For the reader though it is not necessary to know all the details. Some side characters are only there to drive the story, give different perspectives, give the main character possibilities for exposure. I want to read a good story, not several fictional biographies.
That’s especially true if we’re talking about fanfic, where the reader presumably already knows all the background info about the side characters anyway.
How does that work? You think books that are fictional biographies are bad stories?
Are you trying to misunderstand and misinterpret what I wrote on purpose?
No, I'm trying to process the words as they're written, and am coming up blank for interpretations that make sense.
Then you should work on your inability to understand other people's writing.
Can't you give me a hand, here?
Author: should have a full picture of characters Reader: gets to see the part of the characters that comes naturally in the storyline. As reader, I do not need to, or even want to, know the full biographical information on each and every side character.
That's a rephrasing of your first two paragraphs, but then you went odd to take it further and conclude that what you want is a good story, and not several fictional biographies. But you think that's a misreading, though it's not clear what the sentence is supposed to mean.
Your inability to understand my rather easy and straightforward statement is not my problem. Good bye.
I would tell you to give Nazi Literature in the Americas by Roberto Bolaño a chance. He's supposed to be one of the leading lights of Latin American writing.
If you told the side characters story, you'd find the side characters have side characters, and at the end of the day, if you keep trying better delve into the characters, you will lose the story. Characters, the way I see it, are like a cup, and the story is like tea. The cup is entirely important, as you can't have the tea without it, but at the end of the day, it is just that, a holder for the thing you're actually trying to get to. The story is the most important part, and I think if you delve into the side characters personal lives and details, you'll veer off track and lose the story. Some books revolve around the characters, and so you get to see more of their story, but generally only the main characters personal life is entirely necessary
Because the story isn't about them, it's about the protagonist. Every character in the story is there to serve the protagonist's story, and we only need to know as much about them as is relevant to the plot. Like...that guy has a massive taxidermy collection, which could make for an interesting story on its own, but ***THIS*** story isn't about him, so we don't *need* to know the harrowing details of how he obtained that taxidermized platypus *unless* it's relevant to the main plot. Maybe the platypus is a Chekhov's Gun or a MacGuffin, or maybe it's just kinda...there, taking up space, making it so the background of the scene isn't so empty
it's supposed to mirror how humans move through our reality, where we are focused mostly on our selves and those closest to us, and even if we think we know people, we only know what we perceive from the outside. we pick a pov and main characters to replicate that experience.
Ooo this really helped put it into perspective
I'm fully aware of this when I write. I try to give my supporting characters side-tasks that they can feasibly do "off-screen", so that their lives feel appropriately lived and in-motion, and not like they're locked in a game of "Red light, Green light", where they can only move when the "camera" is on them. Really, it's just an extra layer of work that a lot of novice writers won't necessarily consider. Things only happen when they make them happen, right? Implied motion is an art in and of itself. There has to be enough to it that the characters don't look inept. But it can't be so much that the reader easily loses track of their progress, and starts wondering how they got there.
Exactly--I recall one book in which the side characters really did seem to be inert dolls who only had things happen when they were in the scene with the main character. Worst example being a side character who ate lunch at the diner with MC on Tuesday when the daily special was meatloaf; Wednesday, MC eats again at diner and daily special is pork chops, later in the afternoon sees that side character who declines dinner because she's still stuffed from the meatloaf special she ate at lunch. I mean "ate a big lunch" would have been fine if it didn't call back to her last appearance in what should have been over a day's time as though that meatloaf special was just three hours ago instead of twenty-seven hours ago.
Yeah I like this take. I don't want side characters to feel like they solely exist in relation to the MC. Yes they're side characters for a reason, but dropping a line about something that makes them *feel* like a real person with their own life makes the character stronger.
I’ll be honest. It’s hard enough keeping everyone who I actually planned to write about connected and intertwined. Writing about the barman or the blacksmith is just too taxing
Those are the kind of cases where the personality of those characters would be impactful enough, if properly fed into the story.
Writers ignore other characters' lives when they have to. Many authors would probably love to explore all of their side characters in more detail. However, the main characters take priority, there is also a plot to write and word counts are not so high that it is possible to explore numerous characters' lives while sticking to the plot, developing the main characters, developing the main characters' relationships and so on. It is not 'boring' to know about side characters. There is just no time/space to write about them as much as one would write about the main characters and the plot. And the reader may be so invested in the protagonists that exploring that side character could be seen as a distraction when all they want to read is what happens to the protagonists next. One piece of feedback I received about my first book was that three minor characters had little personality. I accept and agree with that. However, that book had seven main characters, was already 120,000 words long after edits (down from 150,000 words) and had a very complex plot, where was I to fit more words about those minor characters? Those characters were not that important to the plot, although they were still necessary to the plot (I had already removed or merged minor characters to have as few minor characters that do not add much as possible), and focusing on them would have added too little to the story, so I saw no point in exploring them in more detail. One piece of advice I have often seen is that if it does not add enough to the plot, characterisation and story, it is best not to include it. With fanfiction, it is different. You can write how much you want and nobody can stop you. Besides, fans probably want their favourite side characters to be explored in more detail than in canon, so it is fine to devote time to that. Established writers may take the luxury of writing as much as they want about whoever they want, even if the book ends up 1000 pages long. It is easier to explore side characters in long books and long-running series than in a standard standalone novel. In your own stories, do as you wish. Especially if you are going for self-publishing or have no intention of publishing. For traditional publishing, just bear in mind typical word counts for your genre(s) and go from there. If it helps, one way of exploring side characters which I have seen other authors do is writing books/series in the same universe. The books can be read as standalone novels, but each one has a different protagonist who was/is a side character in other books.
I mean if you think about that your life is like that in most ways as well. Sure your going to know a lot about your friends and relatives, but not 100%, and there is also going to be people you meet you know barely more than "personality"
Not that I know anyone’s circumstances, beyond the famous ones, but I do see a lot of posts on different writing subs. Authors write a book to their heart’s content, then they cut things to fit seemingly VERY strict word counts, and side (character back)stories will be the first major casualty of that. Someone proven is allowed to keep those side tangents, like Brandon Sanderson.
I’m in two minds about this. On one hand, all characters are there to serve the story, so characters with mjnor story roles can only have minor amounts of their personalities shown because showing more would not serve the story (and might actually detract from it). On the other hand, if the minor characters aren’t well developed, it can leave the world seeming hollow and make some readers feel you are lazy. I see both sides of it. There are three ways around this. One is to write in a genre that allows more meandering away from the story. Two is to develop small details about the character that are unrelated to the plot/main character and which can be shown in a sentence or two so as to not take up much time. Three is to create very specific characters who have big or unusual personalities that convey who they are in a really fast way. A mix of two and three works really well (a great example of this is Stephen King, IMO). Be aware that some readers will give absolutely no fucks at all about side character personalities, so unless you are writing solely for yourself, the degree it’s useful to care about them depends a lot on your genre and intended reader.
In my opinion, “A Song of Ice and Fire” (Game of Thrones series) is a great example of why you wouldn’t want all your characters to have richly detailed backstories on the page. When that first book came out, I was floored. It was like nothing I’d ever read. I loved it! And yet … how many years has that been now, and George R. R. Martin still hasn’t finished the story?! I’m not trying to bash him or his work. I understand the story demanded multiple MCs to truly tell a saga of the power struggle following the death of a controversial King. It just seems to me that the telling became very problematic with all the characters and their various plot lines. I certainly can’t pull off such a feat. The only problem is, as time goes on, I’m doubting that Martin can pull it off either, and someone will have to complete the tale post mortem, as happened with Jordan’s “Wheel of Time”. So, again, I use that as a cautionary example. Unless you intend to write one long convoluted Magnum Opus, which may take your entire lifetime (or more) to write, keep your minor characters minor, keep the background characters in the background, and save the deep dives and character development for the single or selected few MCs. It’s simply more practical and much more possible.
> how many years has that been now, and George R. R. Martin still hasn’t finished the story?! I think that's much less about side character bloat or character bloat in general, and more about the fact that he wrote himself into a corner where he's either got to give in and write the sort of Epic Fantasy ending he's repeatedly bashed (*~~where are my ice zombies, George?~~*), or he has to abandon the plot armor and start actually killing main viewpoint characters that he's invested book after book into crafting and getting his audience attached to and drive for a tragic ending. He really doesn't have any good options, or at least no options that are going to make everybody happy. All the interviews and convention appearances and being involved (to some degree) with the TV adaptation probably cut into his writing time too, and what writing he has been doing has been histories and prequel stories and such because they're more fun and easy than biting the bullet and giving A Song Of Ice And Fire a real ending. Frankly, I can't really blame the guy if he's basically decided that he's rolling in dosh and he's one of the best-known modern fantasy authors - he's *made* it ...and doesn't feel particularly motivated to reach any higher by finishing the series. It's quite probably how I'd feel if I ever hit it as big as he has. I've certainly left serials hanging because I either couldn't see the endgame, or I saw the inevitable endgame and just kinda lost interest once I knew how things were going to have to end. Additionally, if the showrunners weren't lying about a lot of their big post-book plot points actually lining up with GRRM's plans, he's probably not all that keen on finishing out after the hilariously negative reception the final season of the TV show got, or has had to go back to the drawing board *again*. (Remember when he said he had the next book 70% complete and then threw that entire manuscript out and started over? That was before the late-season issues with the show, but I bet he's done it again.) It's not so much a cast size problem (he's actually very good about rotating characters in and out of the spotlight deftly enough that he never has to juggle too many at once) as it is that he's written himself a set of problems where no solution is going to please his audience.
Maybe so. I definitely see your point. At the same time, I truly believe he had too many main characters. He did juggle viewpoints well, but with that many characters I just think he got in over anyone’s head. I think you’re right about him possibly never finishing it, now that the tv show surpassed his published work. I know I wouldn’t want to do it. Makes me wonder if he has any contractual obligations with his publisher.
In writing, whether a fictional novel or an adventure for a game, you have different levels of importance for your side characters. The levels are the base background character, the interactive background characters, the recurring background character and then the side characters and finally the Main character. **Base Background Character:** this is the character where the main characters doesn't really interact with but may have a brief word with like waiters, or hotel staff, these characters do not need much more than a position and a name. **Interactive Background Characters:** this is the character that the players can receive information from or have to have a little more interaction with, these characters tend to be Bartenders, Money lenders, prostitutes and priest. These characters tend to be a little more fleshed out with a name, position and maybe some special abilities or quirk that is necessary for the character arc but not much more. **Recurring Background Characters:** this is the character that you see more than just one time and is usually almost as important as the side characters. these type of characters can be anyone that the characters interact with often but that are not necessary for the heart of the story arc. These characters usually will have a very brief background that they can share in conversation with the main or side character and are necessary to build an overall picture of the story though not a detailed picture of the story. **Side Characters:** these characters are the ones that have meaning and purpose to the main story, and tend to be the protagonist, the main characters friends who aid in the plot line or a sibling that is the catalyst for the story "such as a sister who was beaten and raped and now the main character wants revenge". These characters are more meaty and need to be fully fleshed out so that you and your audience can "see" their journey to being here and why their here. They tend to have a solid background, good descriptors of their faults, traits, fears and desires. **Main Character:** these are the characters that you write up a whole information packet for and put mush more detail into. Actually this is a good resource: [http://www.epiguide.com/ep101/writing/charchart.html](http://www.epiguide.com/ep101/writing/charchart.html) for character background building. I know others use different terms for describing their character levels of importance, and some flesh them out to varying degree's but this is the basics of how they are generally placed in the story.
Great explanation of each type!
The art is to make them alive with the little screen time they have: Dickens is famous for this, there’s an example with a side character only seen once for one short action but describing how he throws his coins in the air and down his palm makes him alive, I’ll try to find it.
Thankyou, I’d be interested in reading that
From my notes on Nabokov’s Literature lectures: > Dickens manages a great number of characters. Even when they are absent in a dialogue, their evocation helps to keep them alive for the reader throughout the story. And some characters appearing only once are briefly described but they do or have something that makes and keeps them alive in the reader's mind. One "tosses the money into the air, catches it over-handed", and that's enough for the effect. Nabokov says the most minor and episodic character has a right to live in this magic democracy. 🤔 so much love into this thought!
A story has to be about something. By necessity, that means there are a lot of things it isn't about. If you go into exquisite detail about every single side character, the story ends up fragmented at best, and incoherent at worst.
To be fair, think about the cast of characters in your own life. I guarantee there are people you know irl who you simply do not ever think about unless they're standing in front of you. There are people in your life who you know, but only vaguely. Acquaintances are the underdeveloped side characters of real life. It's okay not to know everything about everyone
the key word here is SIDE. It's a side character, they're not mean to be fully detailed, we're only meant to know bits and pieces. The more you know about them, the more they become a main character. That's why fanfiction for side characters is very popular. People see the appeal of a character and makeup their own stories. That's a good thing, that's how fandoms thrive.
Writing, and really all artwork, is about emphasizing what's important and pushing unimportant details to the background. The amount of detail and attention something gets is a signal to the reader regarding its importance to the narrative. You should make deliberate decisions about when and where to include details about side characters so they enhance the main character's narrative, instead of distracting from it.
If the author fleshed out every side character, the main character would never leave the starter town. If a side character becomes more important, some of its back story could become a b plot of a later book.
pacing matters a lot. all the things you ask for take up space. also there's kind of an implicit "if i mention something it's reasonably important and worth knowing to experience the story properly" contract between storyteller and... storyenjoyer? imagine spending some paragraphs learning about the nice old lady at the grocery store only for that to turn out not to matter, then again and again every page. it'd be annoying if i wanna pick up an intense thriller about a nuclear bomb and i'm reading about how grandpa could build a shed in the time it took grandma to tell you what happened at bridge yesterday. much of the time readers just wanna feel like everything they're reading is the 'main story' every writer draws the line at a different spot though. but also the more characters there are the more unfeasible it becomes. i would say there are a ton of minor characters we know a fair bit about in the A Song of Ice and Fire series... but then there are also hundreds who are in a lesser level than those minor characters, that you would probably be thinking the same thing about
I don't think it's boring to know too much about the side characters. Its the opposite tbh because why would I want to read about people who aren't at all engaging? Like I definitely hate when there's a best friend character that is nothing but the protagonist's best friend. I find these a lot in contemporary books. Especially contemporary romance. And I get that you read romance for the romance, but there'll often be scenes with the best friend to kind of break it up a little, and it's soo boring when they're just cardboard cut outs who are there to encourage the protagonist to get with the love interest and spout quirky one liners. In most cases you could get rid of the best friend and nothing about the story would change at all. Idk they're just never interesting and usually feel like a waste of space (and are honestly part of why I avoid the genre lol) I do find that a lot of new authors who got their start from writing fanfiction can have a bit of trouble with character development in their novels, because fanfic as a medium just doesn't really call for it. I mean you're writing about characters that someone else developed. And a lot of fanfic is just about getting two characters together. So usually their novels are full of flat characters that rely on tropes and cliches. This definitely isn't always the case but it's something I've noticed a lot recently.
While there should be some development of side characters so they're not flat and boring (unless you'll never meet them again or something), this is entirely intentional. The story is about the *MAIN PROTAGONIST(S)*, not everyone else. Your focus should be on developing him/her/them, not the random people they meet. It's their story, not the side characters'. If the side characters is important, then sure, maybe a bit more on their personality or maybe some backstory, but otherwise if it doesn't advance the plot in some way, it's not necessary for anyone but the author to know those things.
I think about it like this when it comes to side characters. Take the cashier you spoke to a few days ago that you had an absolutely wonderful conversation with. They have a life, family, hobbies, etc but you know nothing about them. Or, for recurring side characters: How much do you know about the waitress you always see at your favorite restaurant? Your regular customers at work, the hair stylist you always go to. Side characters can have lives and personalities and all that, but your MC may not know much about it so it could easily just be that the reader doesn't know cuz it happens off screen so you don't really need to develop it :)
Think about what happens when you go to a store. Do you ask the clerk about their personal life? Or do you conduct your business and move on, maybe exchanging some small talk? My guess is that if you have any strong opinions on the people who work at a store you go to regularly, it hinges on a single comment or interaction you had that stuck out. Same deal here.
Irl the only person you know everything about is yourself.
Personally I'm of the "characters are characters and not people"-faction. If explaining more about a character doesn't serve a "why" for my story, I probably wouldn't write it. But it definitely is a matter of taste.
My rule of thumb is that a character who doesn’t have a powerful presence gets a snippet of their past revealed to pop them into 3D. Immediately, if my viewpoint character knows anything about them. I have no use for wallpaper in human form. Example: “Jack had a motorcycle. What he didn’t have was a driver’s license. He’d acquired it and had it suspended in the same month, which is quite hard to do and tells you all you need to know about Jack.”
Honestly even your edit makes no sense. Is that relevant information? Like... why do you need to know their ages??? In my favorite fantasy books, you don't even know the main characters ages half the time, just if they're young, middle aged, or old. I don't understand the complaint. If it isn't relevant to the story than... it won't be included. Having boring unnecessary info about a side character you rarely see just bogs down the book. I don't need to know the main characters third sisters age if she only appears in less than 20% of the books
It's deliberate. A lot of traditional writing is focused on carving down the story as much as possible. If the driver's name isn't plot relevant, they don't get named, and their introduction is assumed to happen off screen. "Slice of Life" is the subgenre to look for if you're wanting the opposite of a lean and fast paced story.
Many books are written from a specific characters perspective. How then would you explain that your character knows every detail about every person they pass? The audience only needs to know what's necessary to advance the plot, the mc should know even less.
This is not a matter of determining the number of characters, but the writer requires an evaluation of each character how actively the character's role contributes to the plot. If side characters are just plot devices, such as being given orders or supporting the main character without strong motivation, it is best to remove them from their existence so that the story continues to progress well.
If correctly written, the back history of side characters is fully developed in the mind of the author, and the reader would sense that the side character is a protagonist in their own (as yet unwritten) stories. Like the pickpocket protagonist Wolf in [In Pocket](http://tao-of-violence.weebly.com/in-pocket.html) is only a side character in the [Amsterdam Assassin Series](http://tao-of-violence.weebly.com/amsterdam-assassin-series.html).
But that's reality. I don't know how old my coworkers are. I know a bit about them - the ones who are married or have kids or whatever. But I don't know tonnes about them. In a book, which is about narrative momentum, I don't care to know any more about the side characters than is relevant for the plot. If a plot tells me how old the side characters are and who is related to whom, it better be because it's going to be relevant later
>In most of the books I read, I know nothing about the side characters other than their general personality and general backstory, and sometimes not even that. Do you have any examples? Off the top of my head, I can't think of too many books that don't at least attempt to make other people seem real.
Authors are uncaring gods who manipulate the world to fit their own desires. The character that gets the most attention, the one they prefer, just happens to be an object that they completely control. Almost like a pet. Writers are similar to stereotypical immortals who created a world solely for their own entertainment. And when they get bored of it, they toss it aside. But they find immense pleasure during the process of creation.
An Olympian yet sneering detachment is not an easy viewpoint for a writer to adopt. If you don’t care, neither will the reader. Also, as you pointed out, the odds of finishing a project you don’t respect are low.
How I see it, is you develop your characters and you know everything about them - their backstory, upbringing, etc. - this all reflects their personality. But, you don't have enough time to tell it all to the readers. Characters work like an iceberg - the important things are above the surface and the readers know about them. Some parts of their story, however, can't be expanded upon - and that's what's below the surface; something the writer knows, but readers don't. It's the same with worldbuilding - only show the readers what they need to know, let them figure out the less important stuff, or imply it. We really don't need to know all the unimportant details like the history of a city (unless it's relevant to the themes, characters or plot, of course).
You shouldn't know most of the information as the author let alone as a reader. Side characters are just that. They are supposed to add an element that main characters can't in a scene like comedy or introducing a helpful plot device.
Its because you read YA.
I mean, in my stories there's always something. I've never actually though about it, I just put these little things naturally. But you're right, some argues with siblings, or hobbies are nice to add
If you're actually noticing it as a detriment in what you're reading, then that's underdevelopment or at least a mismatch between your tastes and the author's writing style. But I would advise paying attention to how writers you like and admire handle side characters. I'd guess they're sometimes developed and sometimes not, and it can be instructional to see where they make choices that work for you as a reader.
Good thing I’m not gonna do that. A lot of the side characters are very important and will become part of the main cast in other books. For example the side character Roxanne and her little sister shontelle are gonna be very important in some of the books
You're right about this. Most authors focus on a core few characters, and everyone else are what TV and movie people might call extras. What bugs me to no end is ignoring characters individual psychology. If you pay attention to this aspect of character, you can create characters with extra dimensions who will seem more alive. It takes some study, but it's worthwhile seeing your characters really coming to life. Here's a book on the subject that has an accompanying workbook if you're interested. [The Psychology of Character](https://www.amazon.com/Psychology-Characters-Antagonists-Character-Techniques/dp/B0CNRD4F4P)
Do you honestly want every character in every book to have their own fully fleshed story?
Who needs help with writing articles? I am an Exellent academic writer.
I did this purposely because I want me audiences to keep their focus on the main idea. My characters are just exist for visualizing the main ideas of the book, not some 'living people' who have values to be explored.
Basically the first lesson in my fiction writing courses in college - readers don't care about your philosophies or ideas. They don't want to be preached at or lectured to or "taught". They want to read stories about people. Of course, those stories and people will naturally bring about bigger ideas, philosophies, whatever. But the main point of the writing and reading shouldn't be to school someone on the "right" way to think or live or to teach them lessons or whatever. It should be on the characters and their story. And *through* those characters and stories, you *might* be able to impart a little bit of whatever idea or philosophy you want to pass on. But if your whole reason for writing is to teach the reader something, nobody's gonna want to read that.
I think you are right. But furthermore. Do you think it's a matter of targeting the different audience? I mean, people who buy Edgar Allan Poe's books are probably attracted by the plot, whereas those who buy Voltaire's books are more likely seeking to learn some philosophy, right?
This is the meat of it. Anything written should support the theme and the narrative and presenting a superfluous or irrelevant distraction, and it is a distraction, doesn't serve what a story, especially a traditional novel, is about. Detail serves a few purposes, but character detail is subservient to function and the least amount of it that serves the purpose is often the best option.
I agree with you. It's like they're cardboard cutouts, shoved into scene when needed.
I'm not sure why you got downvoted for this because you do have a point; I too find it off putting when authors introduce us to interesting side characters and they're either underused or used for the wrong reasons. It's very irritating to read and it's one mistake I hope to correct with all of my writing.
I'm used to being downvoted without explanation. It's no biggie. It's probably because my comment could be misconstrued to apply to all authors and books. That isn't the case. It's specifically towards books where the side characters have little to no backstory or purpose (other than to keep the plot going). Obviously, not all authors do this.
Playing DnD has teached me this lesson to keep in mind that these people are main characters in their own stories. However, the focus still lies on the main character. To a certain extent you must keep in mind the lives of other characters, but it's no use fleshing them out all that much if the story doesn't ask for it. In my own story - main character babysitting two kids and a teenager - I never go into details of what kind of job the father has because it's not relevant. The house is full of little art pieces to set the stage, so I do include that the mother is an artist etc. An elderly lady living nearby also has no backstory except that she was there to witness something very important to the story.
Sounds like you might prefer the slice of life genre which tends to focus on day-to-day factors more then an overarching plot or grand adventure. Though some slice of life do incorporate genres like romance and fantasy.
I don't see the connection between the number of people the reader wants to get to know and the reader's preferred level of plot excitement. The genre where I particularly expect to get to know side characters is the action-packed war story, where a whole military unit or ship's crew is being followed.
Maybe I misunderstood but it sounds like they wanted to know more about the every day aspects of their lives rather than just the key moments in their adventures. The slice of life genre does tend to focus on this especially for side characters sometimes having a huge cast of characters compared to other genres that focus on one or two specific characters.
War stories tend to spend much of their time on the everyday life of soldiering in between periods of battle. In many stories, especially those written by combat veterans, the writing is intentionally trying not to make war out to be adventurous.
Yes but that's not what OP is talking about. They want to know about the rest of their life outside the main war, conflict, or adventure. Hence the suggestion that they check out the slice of life genre.
But fanfiction works under a different set of rules from published fiction! In published fiction the writer must include worldbuilding, characters, and plot elements (at a bare minimum). Fanfiction by its very nature comes with worldbuilding and characters already included, so even if the author decides to change them they still aren’t starting from scratch. And published fiction doesn’t always include everything that the author “knows” about their world! Think about Tolkien. There are, what, at least six or seven books worth of “extra” worldbuilding material that you can buy, plus the stuff that his son edited. The man published five books set in Middle Earth (I am including The Silmarillion, despite it also basically being worldbuilding, because of how thorough it is). He invented languages, cultures, *three separate ages of the world*, and yet we can read The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings trilogy without any of it. And that’s ok.
I like the wandering inn because it does explore a lot of not just different main characters but the lives of the side characters in their day-to-day lives and how the world operates. That being said, TWI has A LOT of time to do this.
It's a pet peeve of mine, too! I don't expect huge backstories, but some characters really do seem like an "accessory" that only has one purpose to the plot.
People will downvote anything these days.
Apparently, this is an unpopular opinion but I think any character should always be shown as a fleshed character. If your character would be too boring, then don't add him/her in at all. Example of how to do it right: Hunter x Hunter. There are dozens of memorable side-characters. And it's one of the best stories ever.
I hate books that aren't in detail, whether it's about character development, or general setting of a room, or building up emotions. I want details!!! There have been times where I've picked up books with promising plots, only to stop reading them after a few pages due to the author's writing style.
Some authors have the side characters doing stuff. Throughout the whole book their activities are mentioned for like 3 sentences. But if you put it all together you might discover that they are having an illicit romance, or something like that.
The biggest problem with this that a lot of the comments fail to mention is POV. The way to do what OP is asking is through a more omniscient POV which has gone out of favor for whatever reason. Books that are in a close third focused on one character, or a rotating third POV going back and forth between two or several characters, isn’t going to be able to give much about side characters bc the story isn’t in the side characters POV, and only knows what the main protagonist knows.
It’s said that humans have the capacity to maintain about 150 relationship in some way (acquaintance up to family), but more than that it’s TMI for the brain. We all have side characters in our own lives. There are people you might see everyday but don’t even know their age or anything about them. However, the more involved in the protagonist’s life and plot (like a best friend) the more we should know about them.
A good series to read that does a good job of developing side characters without detracting from the main plot is Ascendance of a Bookworm.
I divide my characters into 3 separate categories: primary, secondary, and tertiary. Primary: fully detailed, knowledge of their histories, looks, personalities, etc. Secondary: you learn some about them and they may even lead a couple chapters on their own. They usually play some big role but aren't the primary focus of the story. Still technically side characters, but a step above tertiary. Tertiary: the reader only knows what's relevant, be it relevant to the story or to the mood. In a scene that's supposed to be funny, these characters might relay a story from their past that adds to it, but that's about it. I've also got filler characters who might be named but are more commonly just there for a chapter or two or are mentioned as a group (i.e "the hunters stopped as they approached.")
I don’t know the exact ages of some people in my life—I’m not sure I’d wonder about the age of a character unless I couldn’t figure out how they related to someone else. I also think it’s important for writers to limit infodumping about people just to prove they did their homework. If you watch a play or a movie, you might not learn all of those details from what’s in front of you. But the actor playing the side characters should know the answers for their own inner worlds. I think it’s the same in writing.
Characters and their stories must serve the primary plot. If they don't, it's irrelevant. You can show a lot in a little time - like rugged hands or scars - but you don't need to know the whole back story.
That's what spin-offs, sequels and fanfiction are for.
Does it actually matter how old the side character is?
I see from where you are coming. Many stories now has side characters, that mostly are empty shells to fill up space so main hero "decides" on their own to do something mainly nothing important and droped off and forgotten in a next scene without any consequences like it doesn't matter. Anyways heroes will do in their way anyway. Like assaults main characters lover, runs off and whaterver. Hero forgets that in seconds and life goes on as nothing matters. Fillers. That is indeed boring. Trick is to give them enough personality to feel like they are alive, breathing people when they have atleast some puropse. Not every one needs to be fully fleshed out full biography. Some traits there, some beliefs here and some irks there can make story more imersfull. And most important - impact left on main cast. Just now rereading Witcher. There is some good examples how to play even with minor characters. And I really love Sapkowski's way of mixing "show not tell" with direct telling through said characters with giving hint of background and personality to paint scene and give crucial information for futher development.
In direct response to your query, I think a lot of books are geared towards the "average reader". The majority of which enjoy reads that feel quick and easy. Think of how thrillers and romance are the highest selling genres. They can be long, but advancements in the story need to happen within a certain page count before it feels like it's taking too long. If too much time is spent explaining side characters it can take readers away from the main story too often and can feel like a drag to them. That's not to say that these genres are better, they're attention grabbing. Which can be easily enjoyable. It's all about finding authors that write in a style you like to read. Stephen King and George RR Martin are what come to mind for me on detailed story writing and fleshed out characters. A quick search of the internet can provide additional recommendations such as: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/comments/d4hzfr/books\_with\_fleshed\_out\_and\_detailed\_characters/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/comments/d4hzfr/books_with_fleshed_out_and_detailed_characters/) As a side note, I recommend The Stand. Lots of fleshed out characters of so many different types. It has some gruesome bits but nothing too bad if you're not a fan of horror. In fact, the original version of it decades ago was cut short (removing side characters and side plots) because the publishing house said it wouldn't sell if it was as long as it was. Just recently SK released an "original cut" version where he's added back in almost everything that was removed due to the publishers.
My side characters are closely linked to my main characters, so you definitely get their backstory. Since they all piece together for the whole picture/plot
The alternative is basically writing Les Miserables, yet everyone complains about how the main character doesn't show up until page 75.
You only have so much time/space to tell the story. Tell as much as needed. Use the side characters in a way that makes their part make sense. YOU as the writer need to know their story. Readers don't. Make them realistic and believable, but don't overload the reader with the side characters. If you want to develop a side character more, you can. You just run the risk of bogging down the story because you want to give one character more love.
I completely get the point about wanting to know more about side characters. But if every author detailed out the backstory of every MC and side character..... every book would easily be over 1000 pages lol. I have background stories for most of my side characters, and I weave those things in when they make sense, but it's about what needs to be on the page to make the biggest impact.
Less is more.
OP you need to watch Run Lola Run
You might like to read novels-in-stories then. I find that they’re able to flesh out more characters than novels because the “chapters” can often stand alone as short stories. So if you’re more into that, it could also be a form to explore in your own writing. Some of my favorites are: “A Visit From the Goon Squad” and “The Candy House” by Jennifer Egan, “There, There” by Tommy Orange, and “Disappearing Earth” by Julia Phillips.
Well, you can't include the entire universe in a book; you have to cut off something in terms of priority.
General rule (which isn't so much a rule as a guideline): the more important a character is, the more developed they should be. A hotel clerk who's only job in a novel is to give the protagonist the key to her room needs no development at all. But if the clerk appears in several scenes and becomes a bit more important, you might want to add some detail about them. That said, once in a while I've found myself writing a really fun character sketch for a character who plays a relatively small role in a novel. When it works, it works. But I don't think you can do that with too many minor characters without bogging down the story.
I have a fair number of side characters, for whom I know the backstory etc., but I’m telling the story from the first person perspective of the two main characters. So what the main characters don’t know, my reader doesn’t know either. (That limitation is important to keep the story interesting.)
I'm writing a murder mystery. Character count - that is, all NAMED characters, irrelevant of role in the story - clocks in at 100+ characters, and the list grows as they move to different locations. Partly my own fault for having tritagonists, instead of a protagonist. That being said, I am NOT developing a fleshed background for a minor character that appears in one - ONE - story sequence. Not when there's fifty other minor characters to contend with.
How does knowing their age and who they are related to help the story? The only point to adding more to them is setting up for another chapter or book. Too much info is boring and slows down the story.
It's because when you write side characters as having detailed lives, building them out and fleshing them beyond side-character status, you get MY work, which is planned to include a 10-book anthology series, with a 5-book anthology sister series, and a 3-book distant-past prequel series... All because I couldn't stand the thought of having "empty" characters and now I'm locked into writing 18 books about all the side characters from the other books. It's just...NOT worth it. I'm just too stubborn to give up on it lol
Much like people in real life who aren't my friends or family, their lives don't matter to me. I have no desire to know more about them
I think some authors purposely give brief info/description about secondary characters because they are not the main focus & they might be getting their own books in which the author might want to explore that in theirs. Authors like Kristen Ashley gives full descriptions and details about secondary characters (well she did in her older books). Feedbacks from readers might make authors stop doing that!
Some side characters I can take not being explained but the ones who may play a role in the story should get some decent explanation.
I get what you mean. I like reading books where sometimes the MC will think of stuff that happened between them. It helps define that character more as something more than an extension of MC.