Aspecting Characters Exercise

[ysabetwordsmith]

I've talked occasionally about "aspecting" characters. It's a way of taking a core idea and altering it in meaningful ways. You can start with a character and shift aspects of their personality stronger or weaker within the same canon. You can move the character into a different world and imagine how that would change them. You can take an archetypal trope you enjoy and imagine how it would manifest in different settings.

So here is a fun exercise for a group of creative folks. You can do this with artists or writers.


1) Pick some famous characters whose defining traits everybody in the group will reasonably know.

2) Make a list of key traits for each character. The list can be as short or as long as you want, but basically aim for a set that would let you recognize that character from those points. These might include name, sex, race/species, profession, dress mode, favorite tool/weapon, defining moment, best skill, etc.

3) Pass the characters around the group. Each person should cross off ONE canonical trait and replace it with a new trait. There are two ways to make this interesting: either change something that makes a big dramatic difference (like sex) or shift to something with a different detail but similar story function (like preferred weapon).

4) Discuss how much can be changed and still leave the character recognizable. You might enjoy trying this exercise several times, changing 1/3 of traits, 1/2, or 2/3 and compare results. In a large group, such as a class, you can split into multiple subgroups and then trade results to see if people who didn't see the original names can still recognize any of the characters.

Here's an example ...

Name: Robin Hood
Sex: Male
Location: England
Timeframe: Medieval
Signature color: Lincoln green
Preferred weapon: Bow & arrow Bola
Companions: Merry Men
Nemesis: Sheriff of Nottingham
Profession: Outlaw
Motivation: Rob from the rich, give to the poor.

Comments

[chordatesrock]

Okay, but what about traits that have to be changed two at once? For instance, if Robin Hood is hiding out in the Sahara, he's not going to be using Lincoln green for camouflage or fighting the Sheriff of Nottingham. Or if he's prehistoric instead of Medieval, maybe that requires a different weapon because longbows don't exist yet.

I also disagree with the list of traits; important unlisted traits could be changed (disability!), and you haven't been specific enough (Robin Hood with a crossbow or a shorter bow would be different). Also, you're partly just flat-out wrong: all Robin Hood versions I know of also use quarterstaff, sword and buckler, and bare hands if needed.

That said, this is a very interesting idea and an interesting exercise, and Robin Hood is a good character for it, because everyone will recognise several different versions (or at least understand that there are a lot of them). I mean, there's a Robin Hood who's literally a fox (from the Disney version). There's a Robin Hood who's a poor shot and a cynical realist (from Outlaws of Sherwood). I even have a Robin Hood version or two on the back-burner (very far back, not immediately likely to be written or posted anywhere) and one of them is blind and uses a fire-breathing guide dragon that the sheriff's cook helped him train.

Well...

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> Okay, but what about traits that have to be changed two at once? For instance, if Robin Hood is hiding out in the Sahara, he's not going to be using Lincoln green for camouflage or fighting the Sheriff of Nottingham. <<

Some traits are easier to change two at a time. But he could be wearing green in the desert -- there are people who do -- and there's no reason the Sheriff couldn't chase him all the way there. It's just an exercise in creativity.

>> I also disagree with the list of traits; important unlisted traits could be changed (disability!), <<

You're free to make whatever list you want. I just aimed for something that would be as iconic as possible.

>> and you haven't been specific enough (Robin Hood with a crossbow or a shorter bow would be different). <<

Because they vary.

>> Also, you're partly just flat-out wrong: all Robin Hood versions I know of also use quarterstaff, sword and buckler, and bare hands if needed. <<

Sure, but if you ask people "What is Robin Hood's weapon?" they're going to say a bow. That's the one he is known for. Doesn't matter what his backup armament is. He's famous for being an archer.

Which was hilarious in one story I read where Robin was mediocre and Maid Marian was the crack shot.

Re: Well...

[peoriapeoriawhereart]

I 'know' the quarterstaff from the Loony Tunes riff.

Re: Well...

[ysabetwordsmith]

Well, there's another trait ...

Heroic cry: "Yoiks and awaaaaaay!"

Re: Well...

[chordatesrock]

You're free to make whatever list you want.

But what if a list is never going to be right, because it's a list? You can't list everything about a character that could be changed in an AU. People are way too complicated for that.

And I'd argue that CND is implicit in the iconic image of Robin Hood you're trying to invoke. People would parse disabled!Robin as an AU Robin Hood, and the image is even more consistently abled than the average character.

He's famous for being an archer.

Fair point.

Which was hilarious in one story I read where Robin was mediocre and Maid Marian was the crack shot.

Outlaws of Sherwood? The one where the entire Saxon race can be romantically and symbolically hanged by the neck until dead?

aspecting, history rather than characteristics.

[(Anonymous)]

I've wondered, you only seem to focus on the physical aspects of what makes a character, and a little on their creeds in your example. How about re imagining a pivotal point of their history? While keeping their core traits the same but presenting an alternative answer to a dilemma they faced (that helped make them them)the revelations made by managing the ripple effect of that one change could be used in a multitude of ways.

You could either use this as justification to rehaul a flexible character, to make drastic changes but use this altered history/plot point experience to elaborate on why they change. You could use this to reinforce a static character, that though their circumstances are different the are much the same and use the difference in circumstance/ deviation in canon for an established character to elaborate on world building since well... the characters' static.

Also the change in history, even one point could be used to change a characters status from static to flexible and visa verse depending how things pan out...

Hmm perhaps I owe an example. I'll pull something from my own work than since I literally am working on a project where I use this trick quite deliberately.

The established character I used was Giovanni of Team Rocket... yes I write poke'mon fic it's a guilty pleasure...

Anyway there are his traits (some from canon some established in my stories)as well as the technique... I've pulled this from my own notes so it's all a mite rough.

Name: Leonardo Giovanni, Boss of Team rocket

Character type: Static/historic character, as an adult and a stubborn one at that he's a bit close minded. Outside forces can make him actually absorb things but it's usually Oak having to ram the idea into his head. Something he both cherishes and resent mightily.

Persuasion; Villainous, focus on selfish and greedy.

Other Key Characteristics:
Controlling,
Vindictive,
Manipulative,
Caring,
Passionate,
Villainous traits (see above)

History point to be changed:
His break up with his fience Guena.

Base event: Guena goes to Giovanni seeking sanctuary from her own family.
Established background: They are on again off again lovers (with his commitment being much more serious than hers, he’s trying to control his more vile tendencies and actually is acting and trying to legitimately be a better person (playing with the troop love redeems) and she is somewhat aware of his shadier contacts. She asks him to use those to keep her family away (they’ve ignored many restraining orders and legal efforts for her to flee) not really knowing the extent of who and what he is.

He agrees.

In the canon (cut and run verse) she agrees to his plot to stage a fight, in the aftermath when she’s hiding she comes to terms with what he is, accepts she can’t morally be with him and goes into hiding manipulating her keeper (an ex Rocket assassin he assigned to her security) into letting her go and helping with the cover up. She establishes a different identity in Pallet.

In Consequence ’verse she decides a few days earlier that she can’t morally stay with him. Still she needs an out so she triggers a legitimate fight with him in public. The true extent of his viciousness is seen on camera, her families actions (or lack of support and outright derision for her) in the aftermath of his assault is enough that she’s able to successfully and legally ban Giovanni and her family from her life. With neither able to openly lay claim to her she decides after a few scrapes with the rockets that more is needed and goes into hiding as an added security measure.

In both verses’ Gio leaves her alone (he thinks her dead in Cut and thing heat up gang warfare wise so he can’t investigate if it’s otherwise, in Consequence things simply heat up and he’s unable to keep tabs on her illegally, his resources are desperately needed elsewhere) and she raises their child alone.
While she’s mildly different due to her experiences (more nostalgic in Cut more bitter in Dodging) this has no effect on Ash and Oak the stories’ protagonists.
Leonardo is also not much different, both Guena/Delia and Giovanni are very much static characters. Because of who he is (a crime lord) and the views that profession has made him harbor (and his traits) once the shock is passed and he meets his child in both Verse’ Giovanni’s response are day and night.

In Cut he at first winds up resenting the boy as he’s a living breathing testament to his fiancé’s betrayal. Once that cools he hates the boy for who he is. He was stolen from him, and without him even being able to contest. She’s stolen from him, but in a way that’s reprehensible. It’s a mix of jealousy, frustration and lost opportunity (and the ability to control things) that makes him so bitter. As it is after several traumatic experiences on both Ash and Gio’s art they tentatively start to bond by the end of Cut’s outline. As in “I’ll check up to make sure you’re still breathing once a week” sort of relationship and their phone calls are painful affairs for both sides.

//As an aside their interactions before “warming to each other” stage, Gio attacks Ash (who started the fight, but really laying the boy up was a bit over the top) regularly fantasizes about doing massive harm to the child (his morality bolt Oak is the only thing to stop him) humiliates the boy and steals back his earth badge just to make the child’s life hell before the real antagonist of Cut even appears proving Gio to really just be an annoying and bitter decoy antagonist//

In Dodging he’s more placid, she got away, bested him in legal and illegal fields and he’s willing to acknowledge her as the winner of their contest, the loot (Ash) is hers, unless of course it proves too valuable to pass up. As of now Dodging ’verse Gio isn’t quite too sure where he stands on the opinion of his heir’s worth so he tends to take a wait and see stance. As it is their interactions are almost friendly and Ash is warming to Giovanni because as of right now he has no clue as to who he is and Leo’s sorta being charmed by Ash and losing his unbiased stance in bits and pieces they actively are traveling together. To echo Cut verse, Leo attacks the boy, but it’s in confused self-defense. His bitterness towards Ash’s mother Delia/Guena is still the same in both ‘verse’s, it makes him a hostile force towards her but his building attachments to his son curtail any vengeance plans he has for the moment.

So the above gives us the same characters, even the same setting, but because of the change (Delia’s placidity to Leo) we’ve come away with two wildly different plots. Different character dynamics, and in short a different story though the root is the same.

In my experience the sooner (the younger the character is) when the plot point’s changed the easier it is to actually make sweeping changes rather than base cosmetic ones. But then that’s been just in my experience.

So.. thoughts? And does anyone know if this technique actually has a real name?

Re: aspecting, history rather than characteristics.

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> I've wondered, you only seem to focus on the physical aspects of what makes a character, and a little on their creeds in your example. How about re imagining a pivotal point of their history? <<

That's often called "fork in the road" fanfic. Yes, it works and is quite popular.