Oops No Soul: The Biggest Paradox in Writing

I get it. It's frustrating to want to treat characters you have a personal attachment to as a creator, more like an actual person. But you fundamentally don't know every last motivation, every last internal conflict, every last priority of a person. You DO have to know those things if you want to write a character with internal consistency, though. But once you know those things, you also have to have the reservation to not post and signal them everywhere in your story, because then you make your character less like a person to others. All these fundamental things you know about this entity you've created, things you wouldn't even know about your own family members, have to just kind of float around and be available for when they're needed to interact with an event in a verisimilitudinous (true-to-life) way. In other words, it's hidden effort you have to put into creation to make the creating look effortless.

I really bristled at this video at first because I initially felt like you were setting up a false dilemma with the whole Crancesca analogy. Ultimately your final point stands and I agree with you, but when you tell the creator of Crancesa that the author needs to know what their character would do, they might be confused and think that the character also needs to know immediately within the context of the story. When writers want to create a "chaotic" character, yes, often there's literally no motivation behind why hey act the way they do, but then sometimes there's actually a very complex SINGULAR motivation that would make a character in Crancesca's situation really struggle with the choice, until they can fully articulate to themselves what that motivation truly is and make the right decision! Many great stories involve a journey where a character must find their own soul to proceed, and it's those stories that are often the most fascinating to me.

"Why do I want to win the tournament? Well, it all started at the beginning of the known universe..."

Ngl when I knew I could answer your initial question regarding my characters' ideologies etc I felt a little good lmfao

I’m not a professional writer but I do have a lot of admiration for scenario and character writing. I think a good fairly recent example of a strong protagonist can be seen in Dot in the 5th season of the FX Fargo series. Anyways, distilling what ur saying down to “keep asking Why” til u get to the central belief is great in how actionable a piece of advice it is. Thank u for ur work here!

I needed this advice thanks

Would love a video about making character arcs over multiple books, so that each book feels like is has a satisfying arc that are each a part of the larger arc! 🙏🏼

You what be nice explaining your point without a bunch of MS paint vomit that is intelligible to dissect.

The farmer's backstory is Naruto 😂

With Cranchesca, I still struggle with the though that both scenarios could theoretically happen base on the continuing narrative such as an eppisodic series; that is to say, both character arcs can't happen at the same time, but at different time's in the character's life.
Say Cranchesca learns from one friend group about self-worth, still tries to make friends on the basis of that self-worth, and later learn self-reliance from another friend group. Fundamentally two different arcs, but done with the same character, or at least an approximate.
I'm not sure, I might be dissolving the dilemma by making both options available to Cranchesca; I could be cluttering what would be simple stories; perhaps they're different characters by that point in the transition; it could just be that a believable person would have a concept of self-reliance and self-love; maybe it's a self concept issue; maybe I don't understand self-love; maybe I'm conflating different core beliefs; maybe characters aren't people.
I think what matters is the core belief that is being challanged within that arc, making a complete arc, and how that resulting end-point shapes the characters perspective for the next arc.

Never thought I'd be learning such valuable insights from a two-legged cranberry

Your videos are the last ass hair that ripped itself out while squatting.

My story is finally coming and working out 🙂‍↔️🙂‍↔️🙂‍↔️🙂‍↔️

My main authors I look up to are Tatsuki Fujimoto, Tarantino and Gen Urobuchi. Wild and edgy.

I’m so over character arcs

I find most of the time these deep motivations usually come off as contrived and cringe, like that boxing example.

I got a query 🥸.

is inner monologue different than outer dialogue? I dont like when anime just says exactly what the character is thinking, but I also am trying to find a way for trauma to be expressed in this character Im writing. Im trying to include flashbacks and am investigating types of coping mechanisms.

You probably wouldn’t be able to do a duel character arc with a conventional Hollywood story structure… but an EASTERN 4 act structure with 3 act elements might get you somewhere close!

INTRO: Crancesca is a character who NEEDS close connections, she thinks of herself as weak without the people around her and she deeply fears making choices on her own. She’s stuck and has no idea what to do. (She’s chaotic in that she always relies on her friends to save her from whatever mess she gets herself into)

DEVELOPMENT: She shows this through the fact that she always asks her friends for advice without taking it. She acknowledges that she does this but chooses not to do anything as she can’t see any way of living her life normally without others help, because again, she thinks of herself as the lowest of the low. (They keep talking shit about an old friend- only talking about how awful she was. Crancesca has an uncomfortable vibe, a hint that she misses her and doesn’t feel comfortable with throwing her to the side)

TWIST: Some of her friends get fed up with her and betray her in a big way. (They’re the type to do anything for THEIR friends and genuinely be there for them… but if you don’t pull your weight they dehumanize you and act cruel) and now she’s stuck and confused.

CONCLUSION: She wants to try and win them back, but slowly comes to terms with the fact that once they see someone as “bad”, they never let them back in. Thus she starts to make her own decisions, uncertain if she’ll make the right ones.

—————

So the takeaway, for Hollywood it’s reeeeaally hard to fit in multiple character motivations since they require different character arcs, but there are ways of pulling it off :)

thank you for making a video that's literally a callout post for my exact problem

Okay ScriptMan, I’m beginning to grasp a tiny little portion of the vast shoggoth that is making a convincing character, but like, how do I make a character that people actually want to know about? How do I make a character that intrigues people and makes them WANT to engage with the character I’ve made? I have no idea 😭😭

That awkward moment when you're trying to research writing techniques and the video gets so real your therapy comes creeping out through MS Paint Crancesca needing to have an Anxious or Avoidant Attachment Style. Also how often does it SNOW (or rain?) in the DESERT and you're just way out in the middle of nowhere casually dropping truth bombs during a natural phenomenon. Phenombombs. Carry on.

If I show a screenshot from this video to anyone they'll put me in a long-sleeve shirt

(Man of Steel spoilers) So Zack Snyder has an interview where he's talking about characters who refuse to kill and what happens if you force them to kill. Of course people got on his rear for this because people (rightfully) point at his version of Superman completely missing the point of the character, but what he's saying isnt wrong; what happens if you force someone into a situation where they HAVE to kill? Its an interesting dilemma but this video is making me think he had the wrong idea when it came to Superman's response to it. Granted, I've only seen reviews of MoS so I can only speak tangentially; it just seems like the "you must kill this guy" dilemma he put onto Supes wasnt nearly as intense as it should've been to "force him to kill" and people see Supes reaction to the dilemma and go "thats not supes"

Another interesting part of this came recently when a recent Comic has Kid-Clark use his super powers to save a kid from a bus, prompting Clark to say "i'm sorry, I shouldnt have done that" and his dad replies with "and what? Let the kid die?" The replies to this were ecstatic about the jab at MoS using the same phrasing for the Dad to imply his Son should let people die to keep his powers hidden. However, someone else pointed out that Clark revealing his powers could end up way worse for him, and that a parent would be extremely concerned about their son being found out at a freak which, honestly, is a fair point. There is Risk of Clark being taken away if he's found out prior to becoming Superman, so looking through THIS lens, would a parent really put a stranger's well-being in front of their child's? This is now getting into an interesting discussion of character interpretation and what a 'realistic' response to a situation would be, as well as a philosophical response of what it SHOULD be. Im still on the boat of Superman being a force of good who'd always put others well being in front of himself and his parents should be reinforcing that but its these kinds of dilemmas where you have to think 'what are the best ways to look at this situation to get the character the way we want them.'

You sort of look like the actor, Jack Lowden, from the movies "Dunkirk" and "Tommy's Honour"

Love your content, man. learn a lot!

Why are you so fucking cool? I mean it, like I actually wanna know why. Like you seem like such a real dude, ya know? I love watching your videos because your approaches are so logical and reasonable and so easy to understand, but also because the way you talk is just so real and genuine.

I guess I just answered my own question so I guess this is just a compliment

You have opened my eyes. I thank you.

I couldn't hold the camera and have a conversation with it, my arm would get so tired so fast

I hope that one more comment on the subject means something: Your writing analysis and subsequent explanations are the best I've ever experienced. I'm a new writer who's been scouring YT for all the free info I can to educate myself. After watching I-don't-know-how-many-hours of writing content, I can safely say that you explain more information, better, in ~10 minutes, than most industry veterans do in 30+. (not every ball player can be a good coach)

I've been doing therapy for 21 years, so I know these concepts, but seeing and hearing them broken down so efficiently and in such an easily digestible way is quite literally invaluable to me.

I hope your channel blows up, you absolutely deserve it! (but not with bombs, the metaphorical kind)

Thank you!!

you've made me realize why I HATE zombie movies/stories

Ok this might be a bizarre question, but what happens if my story is suffering from a lot of crancheska's issues, just on a plot based level rather than a character level.

I understand my two main characters very well, one is a girl who has a loving relationship with her parents, yet is cold and snappy with her classmates and peers because she believes herself to be "defective" and cannot imagine someone loving her, defects and all, because she's spent so much of her time focused on the defect that she assumes everyone else views her the same way and she must keep her guard up, if she doesn't let anyone in then she can never be hurt.
The other main character is a boy who shares the girl's "defect" yet seems very unbothered by it, he's got a very happy-go-lucky attitude and does not seem to care for what others think of him. In reality, this is all an act, the boy has a rough home life and believes it is impossible to change things for the better, if anyone were to try and help him they'd only be wasting their time, so he pretends to be happy, cute, likable. This way, the boy can have friends that take his mind off his home situation, and these friends wont have to waste their time trying to help what the boy sees as a helpless situation, instead they're treated with so much warmth and positivity that they cant imagine anything else from the boy.

These two characters are very intriguing, and I love how their home life and outside personas contrast with each other, but as for the plot? its kind of like what you said about crancheska, I don't have a plot, I have a vibe. I want the beginning to be sweet and homey but also threatening, like the antagonist is just around the corner, waiting to be introduced, and I want the villain to be large and imposing, but not clash with the sweetness of the opener, and I want and I want and I want. It's conflicting and confusing and annoying how I have four different stories but the one I care about the most is having an identity crisis. It makes me feel like a bad writer.

Enid from Ok Ko: Let’s be Hero’s
A great example of - She’s a vibe and goes on an interesting arc of trying to find her identity.

Subscribed😊

Hey I have no significant background in making characters or fiction but what is the argument against making characters around an entertaining gimmick rather than a deep backstory? Isn’t the whole purpose of fiction to entertain no matter what? If I can make a predictably endearing one dimensional character wouldn’t that be a better foundation than just building one from trauma or subconscious desires?

Thank you so much for making this video

"They love that word."

😂They really do.

The farmer trying to win a zucchini contest because of childhood trauma makes me think of sports or food animes where their supreme skills and drive are tied to some childhood traumas. It’s somewhat darkly humorous but I think your vid shone a light on why I still found them compelling despite the zaniness of it all.

I will say the idea of-
Your core of a character is the point where back story/trauma meets belief/drive.

Really clarifies WHY some of my characters feel so alive, while others just tend to flop and feel like lifeless networks of loosely connected traits/tropes.

I also realized I have a MASSIVE inefficiency where when I tried to "naturally develop" characters, I would basically just make a character by slapping random traits and ideas together which rarely resulted in a "core".

The characters that I had that DID develop into something substantial are the ones that ended up forced into situations where they absolutely NEEDED a why.

Also it made me realize that for those characters that did naturally form their underlying "core" is very similar, typically some sort of fear that they'd lose control of themselves or never had control in the first place and would become or already are something less than human-

Typically as an extension of the fear of becoming just like the people/monsters that made their lives hell in the first place-

And a lot of their natural character development after I basically made these cores by accident, was them deciding to either rise above the circumstances behind their creation, or going rogue to become the monster that society always expected them to be.

The core was there, but basically just out of sheer luck/subconscious manifestation because that was NEVER the plan, I just kept stumbling into multiple interpretations of the same theme while trying to write vaguely supernatural themed characters.

I don't know what my mother or father's "deepest fear" is, but I still know how they would react in a given situation. I've seen them change and grow over my life, go through trauma and loss. They are different people now, they've had an "arc". I don't need to psychoanalyse them and say "oh no this person's anxious-response takes precedence over their fear-response" in order to know how they act.

Not every "sole motivation" needs to be a false belief or overcoming fear. People can have positive motivations eg. doing good, changing the world, having fun. People can have existential motivations eg. finding themself, understanding the world. People can have negative motivations eg. hurting others. To name a few. Or....better yet, people can have multiple competing motivations which are impossible to separate and need not be cut up and butchered into a forced "arc".

This is actually an interesting way to approach “self-authoring” or self-exploration as well. At some point, your principles and values you think are held equally may come into conflict, and you’ll have to make a choice.

Even your non-enneagram videoes teach me about the enneagram.

I find this interesting because im a Protestant, and I never saw Catholics and Protestants on different plains of belief since they both proclaim Christ as lord, whereas Judaism rejects Christ as a whole entirely, so it left me wondering if there are more major difference between Protestants and Catholics apart from minor disagreements or different interpretations of scripture.

You know what, you’re right, the matrix FAILED to deliver on the cathartic relief of seeing Cypher look out the window, see the end of the world, have his memories come back, and watch Neo become the one. And just… rage at the window as he turns into agent smith and everything he ever wanted crumbled down around him.

Not wanting to get eaten by monsters? What kinds of monsters - Dinosaurs? The kids on Camp Crestaceous don’t want to be eaten by dinosaurs either —- but they all also have other motives.