Go ahead, jump into that deep end...

There’s something to be said for character development outside of the story. What I mean is that, as a writer of any kind of story, you really need to almost overdevelop your characters when you create them. I think that a lot of writers in television or movies stop thinking about their characters as soon as those characters are no longer on the screen. I’ve seen a lot of shows get called out for “weak” writing and the complaints are usually centered on plots that make no sense or characters that just aren’t believable. I truly believe, however, that all of this can be traced directly back to lack of character development outside of the story or off the screen.

The viewer doesn’t necessarily need to see little Timmy’s fifth grade recital to understand that as the moment he realized he was destined to be a star. The writer, on the other hand, certainly needs to realize that it was this exact event that acted as the catalyst for the path Timmy finds himself on when we, the audience, join up with Timmy. If the writer doesn’t possess this piece of information then he really doesn’t understand Timmy and can’t believably write that character.

Let me go to an example outside the realm of television (but still within the world of scifi/fantasy). J. K. Rowling, author of the world-famous Harry Potter books, gave us seven books filled with oodles of rich characters, no matter how big or small the part each character had to play. When she was first setting out to share Harry’s story with the world she made a back story for every first year student that entered Hogwarts with Harry. She can tell you the name, birthday, and favorite color of a character that we may only have seen walking down the hall as our heroic trio discussed some matter of import. In book five, we are treated to some of Sirius Black’s back story and learn the names of a few of his relatives as he and Harry discuss the Black family tree. It was a nice little informative scene, but Rowling didn’t stop at just coming up with those few relatives Harry and Sirius discuss in the book. She came up with the complete family tree—complete with back story on most if not all of the family. When the fifth film was being produced and the props department needed more names to fill out the tree so that the scene could be translated to the screen, Rowling was able to send them over the complete chart without delay. She knows what happened to everyone in this world long before we met them and long after we had to say goodbye. As she recently told an audience at Carnegie Hall—she even knows that not only does Neville Longbottom become the headmaster of Hogwarts, but he also marries Hannah Abbott (of Hufflepuff) and lives at the Leaky Cauldron (which his wife runs) while he’s not at school.

Then there's that other thing she told the fans at Carnegie Hall on Friday. Yeah, you knew I was going to bring it up. Turns out our beloved Dumbledore is gay. Good for him. On the way to work yesterday and at lunch I heard several news stories regarding Jo's big "announcement." Oh did that frustrate me--not that Dumbledore's orientation is considered newsworthy or is controversial--those books have been nothing but controversial despite how well they have been received. Here's the thing--she didn't announce this fact. She was at a Q&A session, someone asked her if Dumbledore had ever really been in love, and she honestly answered the question. There was a particular wizard in Dumbledore's past that anyone who has read book seven knows about--and this wizard was D's one true love. I'm pretty sure Jo could have gone the rest of her life without telling anyone that Dumbledore is gay, but I also don't think she's the kind of person who has ever been inclined to be anything but honest with her fans. Someone asked so she answered.

To bring this back on track, the reason I mention the whole situation is that this has been an essential part of Dumbledore's character since day one. We the readers may not have known, but Jo couldn't have written him half as well if she hadn't. To even better prove my point--this part of Dumbledore had nothing whatsoever to do with the story of Harry Potter, so she never felt the need to include the information in any of the books. It's part of who he is, but not part of the story.

This is what I am talking about when I say that writers should overdevelop their characters. I think this is even more crucial in the world of television than in some other forums because for the most part television is ongoing. Character development is pretty much built in, unless you have the misfortune to be canceled before your time or unless you are writing a really crappy show. But what makes these characters able to grow and more believable to the audience is a writer that treats them as if they go on living their lives when you turn your television off.

I would lay down money that if asked what Clem the Demon's favorite movie is, Joss Whedon could answer without batting an eyelash. Ask any Whedonite why they love Buffy, Angel, or Firefly, and I would also bet that at least 3 out of 5 people would tell you it's because of the characters. We loved these people so much, wanted so deeply to find out what happened to them after their series' ended, that we got a movie out of Firefly and Buffy and Angel are now both officially continuing on in comic book form. If he hadn't known his characters so well to be able to write such enthralling stories for them, we would have none of that today, nor would we probably want it. Buffy the Vampire Slayer would have gone quietly into obscurity and the world would have been a much duller place.

One of my favorite television writers, Jane Espenson (who has written for such shows as Dinosaurs, Buffy, Angel, Firefly, Star Trek: DS9, Battlestar Galactica, and the Gilmore Girls), has a really awesome blog for aspiring television writers. I like to read it purely for the writing insight and the many Whedonverse or Galactica references. Some of her recent advice follows along the lines of what I've been saying today. She recommends giving characters something to do on screen and notes that whatever activity you choose for your characters not only will serve a technical purpose, it will also give the characters depth. I whole-heartedly agree with this. Imagine you're a writer and you need to create one of these scenes--how much easier would the scene be to write if you already knew enough about your characters to know if they play Scrabble or would prefer Uno? How much more rich will the scene be if you don't have to stress about those kinds of details because you already know the game they're playing and know them well enough to say who'll play fair, who'll cheat, and who is just playing because they're bored?

So that's my advice to the writers of the television world (because clearly they all read this blog). If your show isn't performing as well as you'd like, take some time to get to know your characters off screen, then take a good look at what they've been doing on screen. I bet the two don't match well.

Anyhoo, that's pretty much my blog for today. In closing, I'd like to send happy thoughts the way of two Stargate Atlantis actors. Rachel Luttrell and David Hewlett both recently became parents (separately of course--two separate babies and all). Congrats! I guess if SGA gets a fifth season it will have to be a much more baby friendly set, huh?

Laters,
C

Recent acquisitions: none--believe it or not I didn't buy any DVDs this week. Wow, scary huh?