I understand completely! There's a series I've been working through for years and I can't even start truly writing about it because for some reason the characters can't get settled. I've often wondered if maybe the story and characters just "aren't there" and I need to drop the story idea all together, but I always come back to it in the end. There are days that I can't write as a certain character because my emotions are too invasive. For instance, if I'm feeling depressed or angry then I can't write as the character who is feeling happy and optimistic, because they will somehow become and feel what I am at that moment. I always blame it on poor development because I still consider myself new and learning, but I'm really not sure. It makes things even more difficult because my stories are usually character driven :/

Lately, I've been noticing that part of my problem is that I'm too present in the characters. Like most of us, writing is an emotional outlet, a part of coping with uncontrollable things in life. When I'm feeling particularly strong about something or having a bad day, I reach for the characters and want to make them feel what I feel and experience and write out all my frustration through them. Not really a good thing since our characters aren't "us" but different living, breathing people.

So. Yes, I hear what you're saying. I wish I had some tips for you, but it seems like we're in the same boat.

~~Calico~~

Even when I'm having problems writing out the character's emotions accurately, I still write the scene. Why? When I got back through and do my editing, then I usually get a better grasp on how they should react. I've had to write many scenes because of this. I have one character who grows progressively angrier throughout my story, and he was probably the hardest to write. He starts out as kind of awkward and friendly character, but the emotional "darkness" he's been trying to cope with starts to push through as the events of the story progress. It took me literal years to get anywhere near what I wanted. Yes, years. It's really hard to write a character who you want to be a good person, but know they have some emotional realities that don't quite fit that ideal. I'm just going to have to let the readers decide what they make of it.

I suggest reading nonfiction where people deal with similar emotions. Memoir is the best, but you can kind of get an outsider's look from biographies or other types of journalistic nonfiction if that's what you need. It helped me out a lot writing the above mentioned character. 

I agree with LeeAnna on this. I usually write the scene out first - starting with dialog, then action, THEN the POV character's emotional response to what's being said or what's happening. And then I go over the same scene again and again, editing it until I get it close to what I'm envisioning.

One of the main characters in my WIPs was an emotional wreck in very early versions. So much so, that when I picked up the work again after some time away from it, I found myself wondering how he dragged himself out of bed in the morning. Sometimes putting something aside and picking it up again later can help get your characters to the emotional level your story needs them to be at.

Calico: I understand the habit of living through characters, or using them to work through things. That definitely doesn't help. You know how  YOU would react and that gets confused with how your character would.

LeeAnna: I do the same thing. I make my character face whatever obstacle I've given her to see how she reacts and then adjust her response as I revise. I actually find it's much easier to figure out what a character thinks and feels during revision. It's frustrating, however, to not find those emotions during the first draft - hence my insecurity. I feel like perhaps you meet a character writing backstory, you get well-acquainted during the first draft, and you become best friends during revision. The suggestion about reading nonfiction is a good idea.

Angela: Writing out dialogue first is a great idea. I've tried that - concentrating JUST on a character's words first. Not worrying about the extras that surround those words really helps you think clearly.

I sometimes feel like if I'm confused about the emotions of a character, it's because the character's confused about her own, and that makes her more realistic. Perhaps that's wishful thinking...

Perry, I'm going to very mildly disagree with using one particular method (such as Meyer Briggs) of character analysis and then forcing your major characters to conform to the model.  The reason is that you want readers to engage the character as an individual, not a type.   If the reader instantly recognizes Pete as an ENTJ....then the reader will be focused on the type and what the type means, rather than on Pete the musician, who, after a brain injury, can no longer play at the same level.  Yes, Pete's type (and how firmly he's fixed there) will affect what he does, but the reader shouldn't be checking back to see if you made Pete exemplify the ENTJ type.   

It can be useful if you're dealing with a big cast of characters and have found that you tend to make them all pretty much the same, psychologically, from the protagonist on down..  One fix for that is to use some schema to create variety in the background.  But even then it's a good idea to create a less obvious set of categories, suitable to your setting and your story.  And for major characters...if you create a good backstory, then let them run with it, that will provide enough consistency for readers without making it instructional.

Elizabeth, the issue raised by JH Mae was understanding the personality and motivations of our characters. I agree that Meyers-Briggs should not be used to force our characters to do anything. Real characters are not cardboard cutouts of one of the 16 Meyers-Briggs types. But I do think Meyers-Briggs is a good starting point to research and understand the people in our own stories. When a story requires a character to do something "out of character," this can be confusing to the reader unless we also relate the stress that it causes, and how the character will deal with that stress.

My own Meyers-Briggs type is that of a hermit. In my day job I am a negotiator, a managment coach, and a consultant on the interpretation and application of policies, rules, and laws. I work with conflict and confrontation. My hermit personality type allows me to not become emotionally involved in the details of the cases I work on, a luxury not enjoyed by some of my customers. At the end of the day, at the end of the week, I am exhausted from having to deal with people. My balancing and regenerating strategies are to engage in solitary pursuits like trout fishing far from the road, working with a driving horse, and writing stories. I work "out of character" in my day job, use my type to advantage where I can, and then I have strategies to recenter myself.

The story should be how circumstances create stress for our characters, and how they deal with it (and their compensating behaviors based on their type), or how because of their type they just can't bring themselves to deal with it, and what that means in the end.

My ears perked up a lot at "driving horse" (being a horse-crazy person from age  2, according to family tales.)  I know it's off-topic, but...what kind of driving horse?   With age and accumulated injuries, I've thought perhaps my next horse should be hitched to a cart instead of ridden...but I've driven only a couple of times for just a few minutes in very controlled circumstances.  It was fun (and it would be a way of carrying tools along for various jobs on the land) but....good idea?  Bad idea?

As for characterization...what works for you is what works for you.   Exploring different ways of developing characters makes sense.  My own experience with Meyers-Briggs shouldn't deter anyone who finds it useful.   (For me, it was an exercise in frustration.)  But I have read books in which the author's most recent psychology enthusiasm (once it was Meyers-Briggs and once it was Transactional Analysis) stuck out of the characters like labels.)   Any classification system can be a reasonable foundation for characterization but it needs to be "buried" so it doesn't snag the reader's attention..or, that's how I think about it.

Elizabeth,

 DRIVING HORSES. We have two older geldings. One is a sorrel Quarter Horse/Saddlebred cross who came to us trained to do everything. He's a saddle horse, can pull a wagon or cart or sleigh, and I've used him to pull logs out of the woods and rocks from the rock pile to a landscaping project. The other is a black Tennessee Walker who came to us as a saddle horse, and we trained him to drive. I drive him with a Meadowbrook Cart in three seasons and a 100 year old Portland Cutter in the snow. The five year old granddaughter is crazy about the Walker.

Perry

Thanks for telling me about your horses.   I don't know enough about driving to train a horse to drive, and driving isn't common around here.  (Otherwise Mac would be sent to for training.)  

 We are in agreement about characters not wearing their label and needing to be deeper than that. 

Stop thinking about creating a character.  A character is a characterization.  You want to strive to create people, the kind that make readers smile, and think that this person sounds just like crazy Uncle Will. 

When I'm preparing a new story, I try to mentally walk through the main character's day or place them in my day and wonder how they would react.  Long line at the checkout...what would Darcy do?  Would she huff, look at her watch, and bolt for the cashier about to open a new line?  Would she strike up a conversation with the person behind her?  Would she read the tabloid headlines?  Little details and quirks add to your understanding of this character and make it easy to separate your reactions to the dramatic moments from theirs.

Good Evening:

I hear what you are saying. I am lucky that my books are a series like Little House On the Prairie! so my characters continue on with each book. The most satisfying part as a writer is to watch Tommy and Sarah go from small children to each getting married. Emotionally I believe and I am speaking just for myself, 'If I can't see my keyboard as I type', I know the reader will feel my emotion put into my characters. I know Sarah and Tommy are not real, lol. But as they share their emotions (interacting with other characters) I see, hear, feel and taste what they do. To capture those emotions is the goal of every writer. I'm sure I could become a much greater writer if I went back to college but there isn't a college in my town.

My advice is to listen to everyone's comments posted here and also to see if your town has a writers group. There are also writers clubs on line, state by state if you just google.

I hope I have been helpful to someone.

Raymond

Character development has always been a problem for me. I've got a couple of great Scrivener templates that I've tried to use. I've also got a program called StoryWeaver - that I've tried to use. 

Ultimately, only once did I manage to flesh out a character, answering the questions and building him using an old software I no longer have. He was a former cop, detective and after retirement opened a private investigation agency. When I began writing, within a few chapters he began developing into someone completely different. Throughout the novel, rather than be the strong, decisive person I wanted he was frustrated and occasionally confused, while still managing to stay on track. Only in the next to last chapter, the climax, did he return somewhat to the person I imagined him to be and successfully finish business. 

When I began editing, I realized that my character, rather than being the Mike Hammer type, was me and several other guys I had worked with both on patrol and as a detective. He worked the particular case much as I and the other detectives had worked cases. When I realized what I had done, I took the core of the story, started at the beginning and rewrote the entire manuscript using a real case I worked with a partner. I turned the killer into a paranormal/supernatural type being and used several of the crime scenes we worked. The scenes are real. The descriptions of the couple or three victims are mostly accurate, with manner of death being changed slightly. I also used actual dialogue we had spoken (as best I could remember it). The ending, where my character gets the bad guy, is fiction.

The above novel is my favorite of the many I've written. It's finished, but never quite seems to be finished. When I'm done with a manuscript, I put it aside for a couple of weeks and pull this one up, to tweak, tinker with and add or remove bits and pieces. 

And, I'm not sure what this has to do with character development or emotional characters, but I'm sticking with it.

--edited by ChuckB on 11/16/2014, 2:19 PM--

ChuckB, I think you did the smart thing--you let your character be who he was, and let your own experience and background--your specialized knowledge--flow through into him.  You used real people and actual experience as material, rather than just what you'd read in someone else's book or seen in a movie or TV show.   Adapting that to include paranormal stuff--without losing the authenticity that real experience brings--is exactly the right way to go.

Every fictional character is a reduction from reality--however brilliantly imagined and written, they are still fictional.   If you use other fictional characters (like Mike Hammer) as the model of how to do it, then you're doing a reduction of a reduction and these cannot be as alive in readers' minds as an original first-reduction.   As for "it's not finished"...if you're stuck in the "picking at it" stage, try looking at it a different way.   Back way off and look at structure.  Every story has a structure--is the structure sound all the way through?   Is this how things would work in a story-world like yours?   Does it make sense that A would do X, and B would do Y?   If not, make a note to change whatever you need to make the structure sound.  Then characters--do they have their own motivations for doing what they do?   They shouldn't be just puppets, dancing in the strings because you want them to...they should have reasons for their acts that would make sense to someone like that.)    You don't have to explain all the motivations for all the characters (or even all the motivations for even one--someone can have an irrational fear of, say, mac & cheese, without explanation--or with the briefest mention that Cousin Brandon once hid some beetle grubs in Aunt Jane's mac & cheese and the character, then age five screamed when he saw one.)  Then the "house-cleaning"--are there things (conversations, situations, explanations, descriptions, actions) that don't advance the plot and define character?   They were fun to write, you were working out something tricky...but not they're just sitting there, taking up space, and making the book duller.  Yank them out.  Read it one more time for those places where you yanked something out and didn't smooth the new transition...and then show it to people.  If you're feeling really good about it, show it to an editor who might actually buy it (or not...many rejections lie ahead, but at least give it a chance.)