Is ok to isolate traits to specific characters?

[磯七ラスミ]

i.e. The grumpy one being notorious grumpy while barely anybody else shows grumpiness.

[shin.e.d]

If all the characters have the same traits it would be boring. Usually main characters have a unique trait that the reader remembers the story by.
Characters that have the same traits can be forget-able.

Also helps the story arc. If everyone acts the same, the story arc might never start. Or be boring to read, even for big important events.

If the character is fun to read, then they are probably a good character. Maybe just write what you like. And other people will probably also like it.
:)

[磯七ラスミ]

If the character is fun to read, then they are probably a good character. Maybe just write what you like. And other people will probably also like it.

Characters tied to a catchphrase or too one-sided aren't fun for me. Nevertheless, they entertain some audience.
I think some people shares my liking so ok, nice advice.

[nangke]

Like with all writing matters, it depends.

If the reader isn't going to spend a lot of time with the characters, limiting them to certain identifiable trait helps the reader know who is who. However if the reader is going to read hundreds of pages about the characters, then the characters need to be a lot more complex than just a few emotions.

[lummoire]

I agree that it depends.

In graphic design, contrast is a good way to highlight an element. Bringing that into writing, the typical otome that doesn't try to be unique has several archetypes (mysterious, arrogant, flirty), and those traits in 1 character are emphasized by not being extremely present in other characters (ie the mysterious person ends up being friendly, but isn't as arrogant as the character who's known for being arrogant).

On the other hand, if you're going for realistic characters, I don't think any one character has 1 trait and 0 other traits. Depth makes them interesting. Everyone has a little grumpiness to them, even though maybe you have a friend that you remember by having some grumpy aspect.

I do think trait isolation could work if you build on it. (Closest thing I can think of are stories with characters symbolizing the Seven Deadly Sins. One person representing Wrath probably has traits that others don't have.) Either by giving reasons as to why they have that trait and others don't, or by making that trait manifest in a unique but meaningful way.

[磯七ラスミ]

Interesting. I'm currently creating characters with subtle quirks that distinguish them. Not to mention that a couple are twins. I like to play with ambiguities but I'm aware that they can lead to confusion and disinterest.

[jdhthegr8]

On the other hand, if you're going for realistic characters, I don't think any one character has 1 trait and 0 other traits. Depth makes them interesting. Everyone has a little grumpiness to them, even though maybe you have a friend that you remember by having some grumpy aspect.

This. What makes a "grumpy" character grumpy? And as a more interesting thing to consider, what could bring out grumpiness in someone not prone to it? When you start asking this question spanning several emotions ("What makes them happy/stressed/embarrassed/etc") your characters will become more complex inherently by answering these and then having them in mind as you write. How might each of your characters react to a situation differently? Could there be two characters who react to something the same way but for different reasons? Depending on how much depth you care to have, you can go down a real rabbit hole asking these questions for better and worse!

[rook17]

I think it's totally okay for characters to have a "first impression" that anchors on a specific personality characteristic. Like nangke and lummoire suggested, one of your first challenges is to introduce the character and let the reader do their initial assessment of who this person is, how they fit in with the others, and what role they'll play in your story. That initial impression will be a combination of their looks, their initial behavior, and their word choice, and it should be deliberate for you as a writer.

But, that said, I think if you do start writing a character around a defining trait, I find it's useful to expand on that anchor trait for your own purposes until it's no longer just a single word stereotype, and ideally it's a personality anchor that can begin to express itself either positively or negatively in different situations. I think jdh is on to something there. You don't have to show all this to the reader at moment one, but you want to have a whole personality that you can reveal as the story progresses.

Is that grumpy character *untrusting*, and therefore less friendly, but more emotionally resilient and independent? What are the triggers that will make them feel more or less comfortable, and therefore more or less defensive?
Is that grumpy character *exhausted*, and therefore actively choosing what people or activities to put their energy into, and it's not the main characters at first? If so, what is the thing in their life that they are pouring their energy into, and why?
Is that grumpy character *deliberately leaning into the behavior*, playing up their grumpiness to conform to the expectations of the social group that's cast them as a grouch? If so, what are the other groups of people in their life, and how do they act differently when with those groups?

A character could be any of those things (or several of those things!) and none of them are solely good or bad. They're about what a character feels in reaction to certain situations, and how they've grown into those reactions based on their past experiences. But if you start to paint a picture for yourself of the character as a full person, then it'll be easier to show the reader the character reacting to a new situation. Every time that disagrees with (or updates) their first impression, the reader will naturally draw closer to the character, just like how experiencing novel things with a person in real life naturally brings you closer.

[Silken Sail]

I generally agree with rook's interpretation that if you are going to focus on specific personality traits that you want people to associate primarily with that character, their first impression is where to do it.

However, I would like to backpedal a bit and clarify something - when we use adjectives like "grumpy" to describe someone, it is a matter of us using a common language to describe something inherently nebulous. All language is like this in some way, but the difference between describing a person as "grumpy" and calling a chair as "a chair" is that the latter is agreed upon almost universally, while the former is not. That is to say, most everyone knows and agrees on what a chair is, but what one person defines as "grumpy" is not the same as what another person calls "grumpy."

Okay, so that actually backpedaled a lot, but here's the point - traits, as you call them, can describe a character, but they do not define character. As such, focusing on them too much risks the characters feeling a bit shallow. In my experience, you'll have more success going deeper - focus less on the adjectives that come to mind as a result of a character's actions, and focus more on what drives those actions in the first place. jdhthegr8 touched on this a bit, but I wanted to get a little more specific. To me, the foundational aspects of character are:

Motivation: What does a character want?
Method: When confronted with a problem, how does the character go about solving it?
Relationships: Who is close to the character and why? What things strengthen their relationships with others, and what weakens them?

If those things are consistent, then I think the rest often falls into place. It's easier said than done of course, but I hope that helps.

[磯七ラスミ]

Very very interesting posts.

In my experience, you'll have more success going deeper - focus less on the adjectives that come to mind as a result of a character's actions, and focus more on what drives those actions in the first place.

I like this part. I want to think there's more in them that what the events let you see. The story is like a window to a world, where these characters live and interact. Is debatable how much internal building is worth for each story.

I base my characters in emotions, parts of me. This is a bit tricky to keep because time change the way I see the world and my characters reflect the changes. I have to make rooms in my head where I'd come each time I want to explore a particular character.

[Phoivos_Syros]

In my opinion, no, it's not okay to isolate traits to specific characters. You could say that a character has the trait of being grumpy, so they are grumpy on the regular, but also make grumpiness depend on the situation for other characters. For instance, if a character who is not normally grumpy, is woken up at 4 in the morning by a friend phoning them, while they have to wake up at say 8 for work, the character who is being woken will naturally be grumpy on the phone. "Did you have to call at this hour?", "I need to wake up in 4 hours!" And so on.

Same with other traits. Your characters will feel more "human" that way (assuming they are humans, of course!)