Back to School: How to Get an A*/8 or 9 in an English Lit Essay!
Happy September, everyone!
As we all get our gears in motion to start a new year, I thought I would share my top tips for scoring the highest marks in English Literature essays.
(P.S. Lots of these tips are applicable to other subjects too)
1. Don’t write about the character as if they are real
Unfortunately, this is a common error in English Lit essays. It is absolutely imperative to remember that a character is not a person, but is a construct of the writer in order to present an idea or theme. No matter the question, you should be linking your answer back to the writer’s ideas and theme of the text, even if it doesn’t seem obvious what the theme is on the first inspection of the question. Using the author’s name frequently in your essay will demonstrate that you recognise the character is not a real person – ‘Shakespeare portrays Macbeth as a tragic hero, as defined by Aristotle as…’
2. Don’t analyse the plot
Avoid analysing the plot or when things happen in the text. Don’t write ‘When X happens it makes us think Y’. Instead:
Analyse the writer’s use of language, structure and form to create meaning
Do a close language analysis of specific words/phrases, including a sound analysis (plosives, assonance, etc.)
Do a structural analysis of what happens when and why that’s important (Freytag’s pyramid)
Do an analysis of form (stage directions, dramatic monologue, etc.)
3. Keep your answer relevant throughout
You need to be explicitly answering the question – not going off on a tangent nor trying to change the question to suit an answer that you want to write. One way of avoiding this is by starting each paragraph with a topic sentence, summarising what that paragraph is going to be about and how it answers the question. Another method is simply by rewording the question into your answer at the start and end of every paragraph. At least. For greater impact, include synonyms of the word, which can also help with the readability of your answer.
4. Avoid PEE/PEEL/etc. where you can
Thousands of students are taught the same, basic Point-Evidence-Explain (or variant) analytical paragraph structure. If you want to stand out, show academic strength, and achieve the highest marks then you must break free from the chains of PEE! (This also applies for your introduction format. ‘In this essay, I will argue…’ gets pretty dull after reading it 100 times)
For my students, I will be teaching them to write What-How-Why paragraphs:
WHAT has the writer done?
HOW have they done it?
WHY have they done it/is it effective?
This way, your focus is always on why the writer has chosen to use that specific language/structure/form, but it allows you to be creative in crafting your response. Being able to discuss the ‘why’ of literature is the key to unlocking the highest grades. Reading through examiners’ reports this summer has made one thing clear – it is not enough to merely spot linguistic devices or structural features. You must explain why the writer has chosen them and why that is an effective choice (or not).
5. Avoid sweeping statements about context
The main advice here is to only include comments about the context of the text if it adds to the analytical point that you are making. They should not be a bolt-on sentence, but they should enhance your answer.
Further, sweeping claims like ‘All Jacobean women were oppressed by society’ is far too vague. On the other hand, a comment like ‘Lady Macbeth is a disturbing example of womanhood because she denies her gender at a time where the role of a woman was clear-cut, even patriarchal, in Jacobean society’ suggests that you have a greater understanding of how context can influence the writer’s choices.
6. A plan is your best friend
Always, always make time to plan your answer. A method I recommend is, first, circling the key words in the question (character/theme, what you are asked to do, where in the text you are asked to look, etc.). Secondly, write all of your ideas down onto the page, highlighting parts from the extract if you have that in front of you. Finally, select a judicious number of points that you are going to talk about (quality not quantity here) and number the order in which you are going to make them.
If you are writing a comparative essay, each paragraph must start and end with a comparative point about whatever it is you are comparing (characters/themes/etc.) I suggest the following format:
‘X is presented in both text A and text B. However, in A the author uses devices 1 and 2 to demonstrate X. On the other hand, in B, the author demonstrates X via use of devices 3 and 4.’ Then write one paragraph for each text. Repeat this again for another similarity. And again for a third – if you think that is appropriate.
When I was nine, possibly ten, an author came to our school to talk about writing. His name was Hugh Scott, and I doubt he’s known outside of Scotland. And even then I haven’t seen him on many shelves in recent years in Scotland either. But he wrote wonderfully creepy children’s stories, where the supernatural was scary, but it was the mundane that was truly terrifying. At least to little ten year old me. It was Scooby Doo meets Paranormal Activity with a bonny braw Scottish-ness to it that I’d never experienced before.
I remember him as a gangling man with a wiry beard that made him look older than he probably was, and he carried a leather bag filled with paper. He had a pen too that was shaped like a carrot, and he used it to scribble down notes between answering our (frankly disinterested) questions. We had no idea who he was you see, no one had made an effort to introduce us to his books. We were simply told one morning, ‘class 1b, there is an author here to talk to you about writing’, and this you see was our introduction to creative writing. We’d surpassed finger painting and macaroni collages. It was time to attempt Words That Were Untrue.
You could tell from the look on Mrs M’s face she thought it was a waste of time. I remember her sitting off to one side marking papers while this tall man sat down on our ridiculously short chairs, and tried to talk to us about what it meant to tell a story. She wasn’t big on telling stories, Mrs M. She was also one of the teachers who used to take my books away from me because they were “too complicated” for me, despite the fact that I was reading them with both interest and ease. When dad found out he hit the roof. It’s the one and only time he ever showed up to the school when it wasn’t parents night or the school play. After that she just left me alone, but she made it clear to my parents that she resented the fact that a ten year old used words like ‘ubiquitous’ in their essays. Presumably because she had to look it up.
Anyway, Mr Scott, was doing his best to talk to us while Mrs M made scoffing noises from her corner every so often, and you could just tell he was deflating faster than a bouncy castle at a knife sharpening party, so when he asked if any of us had any further questions and no one put their hand up I felt awful. I knew this was not only insulting but also humiliating, even if we were only little children. So I did the only thing I could think of, put my hand up and said “Why do you write?”
I’d always read about characters blinking owlishly, but I’d never actually seen it before. But that’s what he did, peering down at me from behind his wire rim spectacles and dragging tired fingers through his curly beard. I don’t think he expected anyone to ask why he wrote stories. What he wrote about, and where he got his ideas from maybe, and certainly why he wrote about ghosts and other creepy things, but probably not why do you write. And I think he thought perhaps he could have got away with “because it’s fun, and learning is fun, right kids?!”, but part of me will always remember the way the world shifted ever so slightly as it does when something important is about to happen, and this tall streak of a man looked down at me, narrowed his eyes in an assessing manner and said, “Because people told me not to, and words are important.”
I nodded, very seriously in the way children do, and knew this to be a truth. In my limited experience at that point, I knew certain people (with a sidelong glance to Mrs M who was in turn looking at me as though she’d just known it’d be me that type of question) didn’t like fiction. At least certain types of fiction. I knew for instance that Mrs M liked to read Pride and Prejudice on her lunch break but only because it was sensible fiction, about people that could conceivably be real. The idea that one could not relate to a character simply because they had pointy ears or a jet pack had never occurred to me, and the fact that it’s now twenty years later and people are still arguing about the validity of genre fiction is beyond me, but right there in that little moment, I knew something important had just transpired, with my teacher glaring at me, and this man who told stories to live beginning to smile. After that the audience turned into a two person conversation, with gradually more and more of my classmates joining in because suddenly it was fun. Mrs M was pissed and this bedraggled looking man who might have been Santa after some serious dieting, was starting to enjoy himself. As it turned out we had all of his books in our tiny corner library, and in the words of my friend Andrew “hey there’s a giant spider fighting a ghost on this cover! neat!” and the presentation devolved into chaos as we all began reading different books at once and asking questions about each one. “Does she live?”— “What about the talking trees” —“is the ghost evil?” —“can I go to the bathroom, Miss?” —“Wow neat, more spiders!”
After that we were supposed to sit down, quietly (glare glare) and write a short story to show what we had learned from listening to Mr Scott. I wont pretend I wrote anything remotely good, I was ten and all I could come up with was a story about a magic carrot that made you see words in the dark, but Mr Scott seemed to like it. In fact he seemed to like all of them, probably because they were done with such vibrant enthusiasm in defiance of the people who didn’t want us to.
The following year, when I’d moved into Mrs H’s class—the kind of woman that didn’t take away books from children who loved to read and let them write nonsense in the back of their journals provided they got all their work done—a letter arrived to the school, carefully wedged between several copies of a book which was unheard of at the time, by a new author known as J.K. Rowling. Mrs H remarked that it was strange that an author would send copies of books that weren’t even his to a school, but I knew why he’d done it. I knew before Mrs H even read the letter.
Because words are important. Words are magical. They’re powerful. And that power ought to be shared. There’s no petty rivalry between story tellers, although there’s plenty who try to insinuate it. There’s plenty who try to say some words are more valuable than others, that somehow their meaning is more important because of when it was written and by whom. Those are the same people who laud Shakespeare from the heavens but refuse to acknowledge that the quote “Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them“ is a dick joke.
And although Mr Scott seems to have faded from public literary consumption, I still think about him. I think about his stories, I think about how he recommended another author and sent copies of her books because he knew our school was a puritan shithole that fought against the Wrong Type of Wordes and would never buy them into the library otherwise. But mostly I think about how he looked at a ten year old like an equal and told her words and important, and people will try to keep you from writing them—so write them anyway.
*sobs for like the umpteenth time this day and reblogs the fuck out of this*
Reblog, Facebook, and sending it to myself so I can always find it…
This brings back so many memories of my childhood stories that I may just weep.
“I wont pretend I wrote anything remotely good, I was ten and all I could come up with was a story about a magic carrot that made you see words in the dark, but Mr Scott seemed to like it.” Are you KIDDING me, that is the most beautiful metaphor about writing and you used the man’s own PEN as the central symbol I’m crying and I can’t even imagine how he felt sdlfkajsdf GOD.
I am not a writer. No, as I have yet to learn the skill of sorting ten-thousand disjointed and fragmented ideas into coherent narrative without growing frustrated and impatient and quitting before I can barely begin…
…but this gives me a flicker of hope that such a thing may change someday.
“But mostly I think about how he looked at a ten year old like an equal and told her words are important, and people will try to keep you from writing them—so write them anyway.”
As a critiquer, your job is not to “make this piece of writing better” but to understand what the writer wants to achieve and help them to achieve it
Applies beyond writing as well.
Also applies to editing. I was recently talking to another writer whose editor (at a publisher) almost destroyed her desire to keep writing. Writers, know the signs of a shitty editor versus one who actually wants to help you achieve your vision, and don’t be afraid to ask for a different one. (Or fire a bad one if you’re indy.)
but like who started the idea that fanfiction writers are somehow bothered by enthusiasm for their work???? cause i see posts all the time like “do writers really want to talk with us about their fics? Do writers really want long comments? I dont want to bother them” and i just think its absolutely ridiculous????
ofc i want to talk to you about it, and would love to hear you go on about it. i took time out of my real life to write this stuff down so we could all share these characters!!! the idea that you’re bothering a fanfiction writer, a fellow nerd, is absolutely crazy
Personally I attribute at least part of this to the shift of fandom onto Tumblr platform. Because of the way Tumblr works, multiple replies and reactions can get cluttered and overwhelming really fast, so leaving replies and feedback can be awkward. I have actually seen ‘tumblr etiquette’ posts going around scolding people for adding commentary onto posts when they reblog it! Actually discouraging people from reacting and adding their own words! If any of this attitude spills over onto fanfic posts and reblogs, no wonder readers are shy about adding their own words to an author’s posts.
Dear fans on tumblr:
WE, THE AUTHORS, REALLY WANT TO HEAR YOUR COMMENTS.
As a writer, I second this, call the motion, get a unanimous response from all writers and it’s carried. To be clear, there’s pretty much nothing worse than feeling like you’re writing into a vacuum or black hole where no one reads your stuff and nothing much better than a long enthusiastic commentary about what a person liked and why and could they ask a question and maybe discuss a perspective – and I’ve made a LOT of GREAT friends all around the world that started out just like this, with a comment on a story. If you don’t want to reblog, then send a note or an ask to the writer to share your comments. We live for these kinds of comments, this feedback that what we wrote touched someone. Tell us we made you laugh or cry and we’ll be thrilled and forever grateful. But if leaving a long comment is too much, takes too much time, a simple ‘I really liked this,’ or ‘thanks for writing this’ is also treasured.
I also think part of the hesitation comes from the massive stigma the outside world places on fannish enthusiasm. Readers are hesitant to talk to creators because they’re afraid of being seen as overenthusiastic or somehow weird.
I noticed this when I started writing and getting comments like “not to be weird but I love this” or “I didn’t comment on the other works in this series because I didn’t want to seem creepy,” and I realized that readers were intimidated by me. ME. HAVE YOU EVEN SEEN ME. But it’s exactly the way I’ve felt with authors whose works I admired.
So let me say this loud and clear:
AUTHORS ARE FANS TOO.
ARTISTS ARE FANS TOO.
ALL FAN CREATORS ARE FANS TOO.
We are the LAST people in the world to judge you for how or how much you like something and the first to understand and appreciate your enthusiasm. Because the way you love things? That’s the way we love things too. And if the things you love are the things we made, that is the greatest compliment in the world.
I like the top list best! Although, nefarious should be on there as well!
Interesting considering in a Facebook AO3 group I’m in, someone professing to be an English Major was criticizing people for using anything other than the word ‘said’ around a month ago. They kept saying that it was the only proper way to explain someone speaking and people need to stop using things like ‘admitted’ or ‘revealed’ when ‘said’ is the only right way. He said they were making things unnecessarily complicated.
They got buried by the backlash btw. Even other English Majors disagreed.
So, note for those who are not English Majors, and even those who are, just because one person says that one way is the right way and no other way can be as well, doesn’t make that true. Teachings vary as much as opinions.
I usually imagine this ending happening after some great, destructive plot twist or long-kept secret has been revealed to the narrator and/or reader. There is shock and awe and maybe some betrayal. This is where you fully feel the effects of what has changed, the beginning versus the end. And in this case, the end is not ideal.
Maybe the resolution’s scene has been set, but that’s not offering enough closure. How to tie up the loose end? A short (and I mean short) piece of dialogue. It usually involves a sense of resolve and acceptance, even if the resolution at hand is otherwise displeasing or harrowing. The gut-punch comes from that acceptance, that acknowledgment of what has been lost in the quest to fulfill their goals. Doesn’t always mean defeat or a pyrrhic victory, but all protagonists must lose things while trying to gain others. This is where that character and the reader feels the loss in the wake of a resolution.
2. A Question and an Answer
This is a lot like #1, only there’s a different setup. Instead of a scene being laid out and then one line of dialogue, there are three components. The scene is set, a question is asked, then an answer is provided. The end. The question and answer usually revolve around the reflection of what has changed. A “what now?” for all intents and purposes. Can be used for a mysterious ending to a standalone or a setup for the next installment in a series.
It is worth noting that the answer does not always have to be dialogue. For example, a character could ask: “So this is what we have left?” and then a (brief) description is given of a ragtag crew that’s survived the whole story. Play around with it.
3. The Full Circle
There are a couple ways to go about this ending. Two, in particular, are my favorite.
A) The story begins with a scene that has a very specific tone and attitude of the main character(s). The end of the story is a very similar scene (through setting, circumstance, characters, etc. as long as it’s obvious the last and first scene parallel each other). However, the last scene has the opposite tone and the opposite attitude. If the first scene is hopeful and the MC is full of naivete and energy, then the last scene is melancholy and the MC has been washed away into tired hopelessness. Or vice versa. Offers sufficient closure to standalone works. For a series, it would be quite satisfying to take the first scene from the first installment and mirror/flip it for the last scene in the last installment.
Or
B) The story comes full circle through setting (or circumstance) only. In this case, the first (or inciting incident) and last scene share a setting. But the scenes do not mirror each other overtly or consistently. The significance relies upon the setting and the changes that have been made to the setting because of what has happened. It’s a good way to symbolize similar changes in the character(s). Maybe the story begins in the MC’s childhood home, where it is bright and full of life, but when the story ends in the home, it has become desolate and empty. Something has happened to the home over time, just as something has happened to the character over time.
Note: there is also the divergence from these two examples where the character in the beginning is not the character in the end. Most everything else remains the same. It’s been used to show succession, defeat, loss, and the passage of time.
The Full Circle allows a nice platform to approach the reflection, the resolution, and the changes all through subverted scene similarities and symbolism.
4. The Joke
Pretty simple. The last line is a comedic remark. It should still involve a level of reflection and/or resolution for closure and cohesiveness. And please make sure it matches the overall tone of the story (not just the scene).
And now #5, the long one…
5. The Cliff-Hanger (But it’s actually used to its full potential)
So many times, especially with TV shows, I see a story end with a dull, exploitative cliff-hanger. Sure, it works. But it doesn’t work as well as it could. These endings usually rely upon a plot twist that has no previous setup or mild, unbelievable danger. So let’s fix that and use the crap out of a cliff-hanger’s potential.
The plot twist with no previous setup is boring and unfair. The reader (or watcher since I brought up TV) should be thinking “oh my God” not “what the hell?”. The difference is “what the hell?” equates to confusion and sometimes the fracture of their suspension of disbelief necessary for all fictional stories. “Oh my God” equates to excitement, shock, and enthrallment. ENTHRALLMENT is the key word here, as a cliff-hanger should reel you in further just as the story ends and you become impatient for the next installment. So how do we get “Oh my God” with a plot twist (there are other ways to get “Oh my God” but since (bad) plot twists are common, we’ll use that as an example)? The answer is: we build it up, we add foreshadowing and clues for the reader to find. Let them feel like detectives as they fill in informational holes and fall down rabbit holes of speculation, even if they don’t know what they’re looking for exactly. Let them get close, but not close enough. Add red herrings. If the plot twist is a shock to the narrator, make sure they miss things the reader doesn’t miss and make sure they aren’t super reliable. It all adds to that cloud of mystery around the reveal. It keeps the reader inside the narrative, not thrust out by a plot twist that comes from thin air. Trust the reader and trust your ability to manipulate the illusion of reality.
The mild, unbelievable danger that the cliff-hanger so often relies upon is an idea that easily triggers examples. Again, mostly TV episode endings are guilty of this. What this involves is a life-or-death situation involving a main character that the reader knows (or at least believes wholeheartedly) cannot die. Therefore the cliff-hanger’s life-or-death danger becomes the opposite because the reader believes the character will leave the situation alive. How to combat this? Easy. Don’t put them in a life-or-death situation (this also goes for scenes that aren’t cliff-hangers). It’s boring if you think or know the character will live no matter what. However, hopefully by this point, the reader is invested in the character fully and cares about their wellbeing (because their life is safe). So, exploit that. Offer up a situation where the character’s fears, vulnerabilities, and weaknesses are played against them. Because even though they may escape this situation alive, the reader will (probably) begin to wonder what other things are at risk. The character’s happiness, significant other, assets, stability, et al. Those things become muted points when the danger is heavily reliant upon an unbelievable life-or-death situation.
However, there is an addendum to this. If your story features a rather large MC cast and you have proven your willingness to kill off some of them in the past, then a life-or-death cliff-hanger could still maintain its intended effect. Just… don’t overuse it.
tl;dr TORTURE YOUR CHARACTERS AND DON’T PLAY YOUR READERS FOR CHUMPS.
//
If you take away only one thing from these 5 examples, let it be this:
The key to a satisfying ending is reflection.
It doesn’t have to be overt reflection (trust me when I say subtle reflection is usually better), but the ending should show in one way or another the changes that have taken place over the story and the resolution that has befallen the characters. The ending wraps it all up into a bite-size piece of text and is the last thing you leave your readers with. Proceed with thoughtful consideration and caution.
Also a quick Q&A:
Q: “I don’t know how to choose the right ending.”
A: Do a couple different things while brainstorming:
Imagine the ending of your story using each of these examples as well as others you think of
If the story is first-person or heavily driven by the MC, ask “how would this character end the telling of their story?”
Consider the overall tone and themes of your story– some endings fit those better than others
Ask “what ending offers the amount of closure I’m trying to give?”
Look at works of fiction similar to yours and their endings. Which work and which aren’t fulfilling?
This was a long post. Whew. You’re a peach if you read it all the way through. Hopefully this helps you on your writing journey.
Absent-minded – Preoccupied to the extent of being unaware of one’s
immediate surroundings. Abstracted, daydreaming, inattentive, oblivious,
forgetful.
Abusive – Characterized by improper infliction of physical or psychological maltreatment towards another.
Addict – One who is addicted to a compulsive activity. Examples: gambling, drugs, sex.
Aimless – Devoid of direction or purpose.
Alcoholic – A person who drinks alcoholic substances habitually and to excess.
Anxious – Full of mental distress or uneasiness because of fear of danger or misfortune; greatly worried; solicitous.
Arrogant – Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or
self-importance. Inclined to social exclusiveness and who rebuff the
advances of people considered inferior. Snobbish.
Audacious – Recklessly bold in defiance of convention, propriety, law, or the like; insolent; braze, disobedient.
Bad Habit – A revolting personal habit. Examples: picks nose, spits tobacco, drools, bad body odour.
Bigmouth – A loud-mouthed or gossipy person.
Bigot – One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Blunt – Characterized by directness in manner or speech; without subtlety or evasion. Frank, callous, insensitive, brusque.
Bold – In a bad sense, too forward; taking undue liberties; over
assuming or confident; lacking proper modesty or restraint; rude;
impudent. Abrupt, brazen, cheeky, brassy, audacious.
Callous – They are hardened to emotions, rarely showing any form of it in expression. Unfeeling. Cold.
Childish – Marked by or indicating a lack of maturity; puerile.
Complex – An exaggerated or obsessive concern or fear. (List specific complex.)
Cruel – Mean to anyone or anything, without care or regard to consequences and feelings.
Cursed – A person who has befallen a prayer for evil or misfortune,
placed under a spell, or borne into an evil circumstance, and suffers
for it. Damned.
Dependent – Unable to exist, sustain oneself, or act appropriately or normally without the assistance or direction of another.
Erratic – Deviating from the customary course in conduct or opinion;
eccentric: erratic behaviour. Eccentric, bizarre, outlandish, strange.
Fanatical – Fanatic outlook or behaviour especially as exhibited by
excessive enthusiasm, unreasoning zeal, or wild and extravagant notions
on some subject.
Fickle – Erratic, changeable, unstable – especially with regard to affections or attachments; capricious.
Fierce – Marked by extreme intensity of emotions or convictions; inclined to react violently; fervid.
Finicky – Excessively particular or fastidious; difficult to please;
fussy. Too much concerned with detail. Meticulous, fastidious, choosy,
critical, picky, prissy, pernickety.
Fixated – In psychoanalytic theory, a strong attachment to a person
or thing, especially such an attachment formed in childhood or infancy
and manifested in immature or neurotic behaviour that persists
throughout life. Fetish, quirk, obsession, infatuation.
Flirt -To make playfully romantic or sexual overtures; behaviour intended to arouse sexual interest. Minx. Tease.
Gluttonous – Given to excess in consumption of especially food or drink. Voracious, ravenous, wolfish, piggish, insatiable.
Gruff – Brusque or stern in manner or appearance. Crusty, rough, surly.
Gullible – Will believe any information given, regardless of how valid or truthful it is, easily deceived or duped.
Hard – A person who is difficult to deal with, manage, control, overcome, or understand. Hard emotions, hard hearted.
Hedonistic – Pursuit of or devotion to pleasure, especially to the pleasures of the senses.
Hoity-toity- Given to flights of fancy; capricious; frivolous. Prone to giddy behaviour, flighty.
Humourless – The inability to find humour in things, and most certainly in themselves.
Hypocritical – One who is always contradicting their own beliefs,
actions or sayings. A person who professes beliefs and opinions for
others that he does not hold. Being a hypocrite.
Idealist – One whose conduct is influenced by ideals that often
conflict with practical considerations. One who is unrealistic and
impractical, guided more by ideals than by practical considerations.
Idiotic – Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless.
Ignorant – Lacking knowledge or information as to a particular
subject or fact. Showing or arising from a lack of education or
knowledge.
Impatient – Unable to wait patiently or tolerate delay; restless. Unable to endure irritation or opposition; intolerant.
Impious – Lacking piety and reverence for a god/gods and their followers.
Impish – Naughtily or annoyingly playful.
Incompetent – Unable to execute tasks, no matter how the size or difficulty.
Indecisive – Characterized by lack of decision and firmness, especially under pressure.
Indifferent – The trait of lacking enthusiasm for or interest in
things generally, remaining calm and seeming not to care; a casual lack
of concern. Having or showing little or no interest in anything;
languid; spiritless.
Infamy – Having an extremely bad reputation, public reproach, or
strong condemnation as the result of a shameful, criminal, or outrageous
act that affects how others view them.
Intolerant – Unwilling to tolerate difference of opinion and narrow-minded about cherished opinions.
Judgemental – Inclined to make and form judgements, especially moral
or personal ones, based on one’s own opinions or impressions towards
others/practices/groups/religions based on appearance, reputation,
occupation, etc.
Klutz – Clumsy. Blunderer.
Lazy – Resistant to work or exertion; disposed to idleness.
Lewd – Inclined to, characterized by, or inciting to lust or
lechery; lascivious. Obscene or indecent, as language or songs;
salacious.
Liar – Compulsively and purposefully tells false truths more often than not. A person who has lied or who lies repeatedly.
Lustful – Driven by lust; preoccupied with or exhibiting lustful desires.
Masochist – The deriving of sexual gratification, or the tendency to
derive sexual gratification, from being physically or emotionally
abused. A willingness or tendency to subject oneself to unpleasant or
trying experiences.
Meddlesome – Intrusive in a meddling or offensive manner, given to meddling; interfering.
Meek – Evidencing little spirit or courage; overly submissive or
compliant; humble in spirit or manner; suggesting retiring mildness or
even cowed submissiveness.
Megalomaniac – A psycho pathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence.
Naïve – Lacking worldly experience and understanding, simple and
guileless; showing or characterized by a lack of sophistication and
critical judgement.
Nervous – Easily agitated or distressed; high-strung or jumpy.
Non-violent – Abstaining from the use of violence.
Nosey – Given to prying into the affairs of others; snoopy. Offensively curious or inquisitive.
Obsessive – An unhealthy and compulsive preoccupation with something or someone.
Oppressor – A person of authority who subjects others to undue
pressures, to keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority.
Overambitious – Having a strong excessive desire for success or achievement.
Overemotional – Excessively or abnormally emotional. Sensitive about themselves and others, more so than the average person.
Overprotective – To protect too much; coddle.
Overzealous – Marked by excessive enthusiasm for and intense devotion to a cause or idea.
Pacifist – Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes. (Can double as a merit in certain cases)
Paranoid – Exhibiting or characterized by extreme and irrational fear or distrust of others.
Peevish – Expressing fretfulness and discontent, or unjustifiable
dissatisfaction. Cantankerous, cross, ill-tempered, testy, captious,
discontented, crotchety, cranky, ornery.
Perfectionist – A propensity for being displeased with anything that is not perfect or does not meet extremely high standards.
Pessimist – A tendency to stress the negative or unfavourable or to take the gloomiest possible view.
Pest – One that pesters or annoys, with or without realizing it. Nuisance. Annoying. Nag.
Phobic – They have a severe form of fear when it comes to this one thing. Examples: Dark, Spiders, Cats
Practical – Level-headed, efficient, and unspeculative. No-nonsense.
Predictable – Easily seen through and assessable, where almost
anyone can predict reactions and actions of said person by having met or
known them even for a short time.
Proud – Filled with or showing excessive self-esteem and will often shirk help from others for the sake of pride.
Rebellious – Defying or resisting some established authority, government, or tradition; insubordinate; inclined to rebel.
Reckless – Heedless. Headstrong. Foolhardy. Unthinking boldness, wild carelessness and disregard for consequences.
Remorseless – Without remorse; merciless; pitiless; relentless.
Rigorous – Rigidly accurate; allowing no deviation from a standard; demanding strict attention to rules and procedures.
Sadist – The deriving of sexual gratification or the tendency to
derive sexual gratification from inflicting pain or emotional abuse on
others. Deriving of pleasure, or the tendency to derive pleasure, from
cruelty.
Sadomasochist – Both sadist and masochist combined.
Sarcastic – A subtle form of mockery in which an intended meaning is conveyed obliquely.
Sceptic – One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
Seducer – To lead others astray, as from duty, rectitude, or the
like; corrupt. To attempt to lead or draw someone away, as from
principles, faith, or allegiance.
Selfish – Concerned chiefly or only with oneself.
Self-Martyr – One who purposely makes a great show of suffering in
order to arouse sympathy from others, as a form of manipulation, and
always for a selfish cause or reason.
Self-righteous – Piously sure of one’s own righteousness;
moralistic. Exhibiting pious self-assurance. Holier-than-thou,
sanctimonious.
Senile – Showing a decline or deterioration of physical strength or
mental functioning, esp. short-term memory and alertness, as a result of
old age or disease.
Shallow – Lacking depth of intellect or knowledge; concerned only with what is obvious.
Smart Ass – Thinks they know it all, and in some ways they may, but
they can be greatly annoying and difficult to deal with at times,
especially in arguments.
Soft-hearted – Having softness or tenderness of heart that can lead
them into trouble; susceptible of pity or other kindly affection. They
cannot resist helping someone they see in trouble, suffering or in need,
and often don’t think of the repercussions or situation before doing
so.
Spiteful – Showing malicious ill will and a desire to hurt;
motivated by spite; vindictive person who will look for occasions for
resentment. Vengeful.
Spoiled – Treated with excessive indulgence and pampering from
earliest childhood, and has no notion of hard work, self-care or money
management; coddled, pampered. Having the character or disposition
harmed by pampering or over-solicitous attention.
Squeamish – Excessively fastidious and easily disgusted.
Stubborn – Unreasonably, often perversely unyielding; bull-headed. Firmly resolved or determined; resolute.
Superstitious – An irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear
from an irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not
logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.
Tactless – Lacking or showing a lack of what is fitting and considerate in dealing with others.
Temperamental – Moody, irritable, or sensitive. Excitable, volatile, emotional.
Theatrical – Having a flair for over dramatizing situations, doing things in a ‘big way’ and love to be ‘centre stage’.
Timid -Tends to be shy and/or quiet, shrinking away from offering
opinions or from strangers and newcomers, fearing confrontations and
violence.
Tongue-tied – Speechless or confused in expression, as from shyness, embarrassment, or astonishment.
Troublemaker – Someone who deliberately stirs up trouble, intentionally or unintentionally.
Unlucky – Marked by or causing misfortune; ill-fated. Destined for misfortune; doomed.
Unpredictable – Difficult to foretell or foresee, their actions are
so chaotic it’s impossible to know what they are going to do next.
Untrustworthy – Not worthy of trust or belief. Backstabber.
Vain – Holding or characterized by an unduly high opinion of their
physical appearance. Lovers of themselves. Conceited, egotistic,
narcissistic.
Weak-willed – Lacking willpower, strength of will to carry out one’s decisions, wishes, or plans. Easily swayed.
Withdrawn – Not friendly or Sociable. Aloof.
Zealous – A fanatic.
I had an anon asking about how to make their character not so perfect. Well, here’s a great list of some flaws you can try to use to balance out his good traits.
There’s a Japanese saying that has a good bit of advice for writing fiction.
The first face, you show to the world. The second face, you show to close friends and your family. The third face, you never show anyone.
People have different sides to them, shaped not just by personality and background but by situation and surroundings– and strong character writing emulates that by showing the difference between how people act around different company, (and then takes it a step further by showing that they don’t always act how they think, but that’s for Part 2). This doesn’t mean that your characters are two-faced or terrible people; it’s just a reality of life that can help make the person in a story more believable and more human.
The first face, you show the world.
While some characters may be more comfortable being their “true selves” in public or around strangers, they should still have some degree of a “public personality”. For example, someone who appreciates physical contact may commonly touch their friends, but they wouldn’t behave the exact same way toward a stranger. They may still retain the ‘touchy’ part of them, but it’s much more likely to come out with brief and less intimate touches, like a tap on the shoulder as opposed to a hug.
This “first face” can occasionally be heard as referring to a purposefully crafted personality that the character shows to the public, like a teen actor who has to maintain a squeaky-clean image to continue getting roles, but situations like that are more like special cases. That’s more of a character “mask” than just a general personality guard. A true first face is still an accurate and genuine part of the character, just adjusted for strangers.
The second face, you show to close friends and your family.
This is typically what’s thought of as basic character personality. A shy character would likely open up when surrounded by those they know and trust, showing their “true” silly side or any other trait that’s inhibited by their “first face”. It’s important to remember that the traits from the first face don’t go away because the first face isn’t a lie or mask, but traits can get more or less intense as you move between faces.
Once again, there can be special cases where a certain “close” person, usually family, doesn’t get to see the true second face because the character doesn’t allow it. Those situations are usually when the character is trying to hide something or protect themselves, but don’t count as a second face in accordance with the saying. A true second face is accurate to who the character is in their comfort zone.
The third face, you never show anyone.
Deeper than basic character personality is uninhibited personality. The third face doesn’t have to reveal anything horrifying– it can often be as simple as a character who’s naturally on the rude side choosing not to make a snappy remark. The natural rudeness is the third face: the raw character and traits that are liberated from direct outside influence. Because outside influence is everywhere, even around friends, the only person who sees a true third face is the character themselves.
In the case of secrets that will eventually be revealed, they can be kind of be considered part of the third face. However, they’re very much separate from it because they can move into a more public domain unlike the “uninhibited personality”, and are better considered as part of an overall ‘internal self’ that affects the three faces.Good secret revealing in stories has build-up and reasoning for the reveal(link embedded) and one way to show that build-up is similar to a ‘hole’ in the third face. The character may not want to show something, but it slowly leaks through anyway.
That “leak” can take a number of forms that depend heavily on character personality and context of the story:
A character with a normally cheerful second face may be slowly eaten alive by a secret that makes them more prone to frowning.
A character with good self-control might find themselves being overly self-controlling with first and second faces to avoid letting the secret slip.
A character who experienced physical contact they didn’t like may become shyer for a first face but their second face may not be affected.
While secrets aren’t fully considered as a “face”, they are related to them in that only certain people can “see” them. Sometimes it’s friends/family, sometimes it shows up more in the public persona– the way a secret leaks into a character’s life should be customized to who they are and the context of the story.
Overall, a character’s company affects how they act, so a realistic (and often stronger) story emulates that. Pulling this off is not just about dividing a character’s personality into layers, but identifying what the causes of those layers are and how they could affect the story as a whole. A character is not just three faces stuck together, but a dynamic individual that responds to external pressures on behavior.
Thinking of asking a question? Please read the Rules and Considerationsto make sure I’m the right resource, and check the Tag List to see if your question has already been asked.
Headcanonsandmore 