What constitutes a character? Nature VS Nurture

Key Discussion
#1

Continuing the discussion from Rewrite - Kagari Character Discussion:

Please mark any spoilers with [spoiler] tags, providing adequate context in parenthesis.

People like to call this Nature VS Nurture. Sadly my sample size for this isn’t very large, but for Rewrite, I’d say it’s clear nature weighs more. (Terra)Kagari has a dualistic nature of extreme pragmatic/loving mother along with the third silly side that only shows rarely. Akane is self centered and extremely greedy in both common and the Terra epilogue despite living a much humbler life in the latter. I could spend all day drawing parallels between how the heroines are the same having lived drastically different lives for the last 3 years.

That’s probably going to take a couple of revisions hence the new topic. Also for the sake of starting slowly, let’s only look at characters in a single timeline for now.

Version 0.01 (Obsolete)

  • A character needs a rudimentary level of detail. A pedestrian or nameless grunt is not a character; they’re organisms that happen to be around characters.
  • A character’s personality would be defined through their relationships and choices throughout the story.
  • A character must affect the plot by way of their personality.

Any changes or additions in needed?

#2

Sorry, but I’m a bit confused about what you’re hoping to discuss here.

I think Pepe was drawing more attention to the fact that Kagari are two distinct beings despite both sharing the same origin. It calls into question philosophical issues of identity, but I think from a narrative analysis (and forum management) standpoint, it’s important to reach a consensus on what different ‘versions’ of a character should be discussed separately.

Taking a character from the start of the story and comparing it to that same character at the end of the story, for example, could yield some interesting discussion, but I usually wouldn’t argue that they should be analysed in separate topics.

In another case, looking at Kotarou as he changes between the routes is arguably a much more significant difference, but at the end of the day they’re all still essentially Kotarou, so I personally wouldn’t differentiate them.

(Rewrite Moon/Terra) The Kagaris, however, are often described as two distinct entities. Historically they may or may not share the same origin, but the story goes out of it’s way to depict these two as twins. Not only do they have different experiences, but they have very distinct personalities. Nature vs Nurture doesn’t factor into it, it’s probably nature AND nurture that lead to the differences. Personally, I just wish they would’ve used different sprites, like a different hair colour or something for the two.

I might be missing the point of the topic, but that’s what I got from Pepe’s post.

#3

A post was merged into an existing topic: Key Rough Sketches, Initial Designs and Scrapped Ideas

#4

Well, the reason I brought up this discussion is because, at least for the case of Kagari, (rewrite terra/moon) Helios is claiming that both terra and moon kagari have the same “nature” in that they have the same main ideals and motivations in the start of the story… But they have a different “nurture” because moon kagari had much more time to try and fulfill her goals, thus making her more open to try new things, whereas terra kagari is much more pushy in doing things to fulfil her goal.

(Might I note here that nature here could refer to not just instinct, but the initial character concept)

This, however, complicates things, as this sort of difference between nature and nurture happens a lot especially in stories with significant character growth. If a character starts out as an asshole, but grows to be more sensible as the story progresses, what exactly is that character’s personality? Would it be fair to always just say “the character is an asshole”? Or would it be more proper not to assume what the character would do as their personality is still open to change?

All that being said, when we say we “like” a character, and then that character changes throughout the course of the story, or worse, multiple routes, which part of that character do we actually like? That is what I mean to figureout through this discussion.

#5

Right, so it’s less about nature vs nurture and more about how we look at characters as they develop through time.

#6

“Discuss” isn’t exactly the right word; I’m aiming to answer the question of how characters should be distinguished, but it’s a long and tedious process.

#7

Okay, I’m a little lost. Is this discussing nature vs nurture as a whole or the nature vs nurture aspect of Kagari specifically?

#8

Neither; It’s discussing whether it’s the nature or the nurture that people consider when they look at a character.

#9

When looking at a character, I mostly look at how and who they are as we see them. Of course, their past experiences help shape who they are. However, let me ask you this: would you define someone based on what they’ve went through or by who they are as a person? Do you define Haruka by the situation with her uncles and sister or as that bubbly prankster that’s always getting into trouble? This is not me saying that her experiences as a child had no effect on how she’d end up, because I’d say that it did to an extent, but it didn’t change who she is as a person.
Another example I’ll use for nature or nurture defining a character is Lucy from Elfen Lied. The ridicule and abuse she experienced in the orphanage may have led to her bloody killing spree and a general distrust in people, but I don’t really consider that influencing who she is. Her past is an undeniable part of who she is, but it doesn’t really define who she is.
So long story short: nurture helps build the character, but it doesn’t defines them.

#10

Yes, we got a fine piece of work ahead of us. Especially with the nurture part where the Ship of Theseus enters the equation.
But I guess that’s for later.

I suggest adding “memories” to the list of things that define a character. Memories are the storage of a character’s experiences and therefore the very foundation of his current personality.
To me, a complete loss of memory equals death (with a hope of resurrection).
Should we consider memory loss an erasure of all nurture, a state that resets him to a state of pure nature?

1 Like
#11

Well that’s tricky. On one hand it’s virtually impossible for a conventional human character to not have memories of things. For a character though, having a memory equals sharing said memory with the audience. If a firefighter risks their life to save a child, does them having a backstory about losing a child make or break their ability to be a character? Sure, it makes them more relatable as a person, but you can make a complete story based on this firefighter without telling why they saved that child. This is why I put “choices” as a requirement; a choice can be made for an infinite number of reasons, but it being made is what progresses the story (Inaction is a choice, but I hope that doesn’t need stating).

#12

I didn’t mean “A character must have a memory.” Having a memory doesn’t distinguish a character from an extra. What I mean is that a character’s memory defines his personality. Technically, it’s his past experiences and choices that shape the personality, but only if he remembers those. If you take away a character’s memories, he changes drastically and at that point and we might start arguing if we’re still dealing with the same character or two separate ones. Applied to the fireman case, the memory of losing a child becomes relevant when he’s faced with the decision of beoming a firefighter or not. If he has a memory of losing a child, that one memory might be what drives him to become a firefighter in the first place, while having lost a child but not remembering it (which is almost the same as not having lost a child in the first place), lacks the motivation to make that specific choice.
Memories matter because while a character’s past choices and experiences are set in stone, his memories of it can change, which affects his personality.

Wait, I’m confused. You didn’t actually state that in the original post, did you? I don’t see anything along the lines of “A character must make choices/An extra does not make choices” (though it makes sense and should be put there).
You only state that a character’s personality is defined by his/her choices and the personality must affect the plot.

And this is where I’m suggesting to supplement this part with something like “a character’s personality is defined by his memories of his choices and experiences”

#13

Well my intentions for now was to have a list of requirements for someone/something to be perceived as a character by an audience. Things get complicated so fast; I just want a simple basis to stand on. Like, I figured the next stage would be exploring what happens when you apply the structure of routes that enable a single perceived character to make a multitude of choices and lead multiple lives as a result. So for now, I’d say to put reasons behind choices on ice. [quote=“Naoki_Saten, post:12, topic:3023”]
I don’t see anything along the lines of "A character must make choices
[/quote]

True. I told myself I shouldn’t make any leaps in logic, but this kind of trial and error is what I expected.

What constitutes a character? Version 0.02

  • A character needs a rudimentary level of detail. (A pedestrian or nameless grunt is not a character; they’re organisms that happen to be around characters.)
  • A character must have a personality.
  • A character’s personality is defined based on the choices and relationships they display throughout the story.
  • A character must affect the plot by way of their personality.