More on Character development

When one is attempting to write a novel or even a short story, it pays to list all the other people who will become a part of this person's life story. If it is going to be a short story, the fewer the number of other characters the better. In short stories, one must keep everything as concise as possible, using a simple theme, only one or two characters, and a very quick plot type scenario if it is going to have any activity at all. Short stories can be just totally character studies without a lot of plot, but usually the plot drives the story forward.

Youth is probably the single most important time in a person's life whether we like to believe it or not. We are always told that the first four years are the formative years, and while those years are probably the most forgotten, they appear to be the building blocks for the individual's future development. How true this theory is can be debated. I am not much of a believer in it myself, but I have heard it all my adult life from a variety of people who think that they know.

Genghis Khan's childhood is one of the most interesting of this particular group of men. His father is also taken from him at an early age and he is also raised by a very dominating, influential mother. Like Alexander who had Olympias as an influence and guide during his youth, Genghis Khan's mother Hoelun is said to be the only woman that he ever probably feared in his life. While he may have respected and loved other women, his mother had a very powerful impact on him not only as a child but also during his adult years. His wife was the second most important influential woman in his life. Since he had lost his father at an early age, he became the primary caretaker for his mother and younger brother. He had older brothers, and one of them remained a part of the family, but he and his younger brother had to kill one of their brothers when he unwisely decided to steal all the younger brother's catches when hunting. Because he showed so little respect to his younger brother, stealing his goods from him, Genghis and the brother together set a trap whereupon they do kill the brother who is so cruel to them. Genghis's mother was furious with the boys but there was nothing she could do and the other older brother acknowledged that the victim had been doing them harm and they had a right to defend themselves.

Talk about childhoods!

Washington also suffered the loss of his father at an early age, had an older brother through whom he learned some valuable lessons, and had a bond and a friendship, and also had a mother, Mary Ball, with whom he had great difficulties and misunderstandings. They did not live in harmony either.

Washington is always famous for his honesty as a child when he supposedly cut his father's cherry tree down, and admitted to it. Every school child in America in my generation learned that story by heart. HIs father was so astonished by his honesty that he forgave him instantly. "I cannot tell a lie. I did it, father", George is supposed to have confessed.

(And wouldn't you just know it: I lost one of my teeth due to biting down on a cherry seed one time. Ironies...)

Because both Louis XIV and Alexander were recognized early in their life as young princes, they received great attention and fame at birth. Their lives are totally different from a child such as Genghis Khan or George Washington who were really unknown to any but their immediate families. So only after they make their fame do these stories ever come to anyone's attention, but both Alexander and Louis XIV were followed studiously by those who expected much from them.

It is important to understand these differences in birthrights, backgrounds of each individual character when deciding to create a novel or short story that focuses on their life and accomplishments.

For the most part, historical characters are the least rewarding to me for reader interest, since we know that the plot is already determined, so that plot is not the reason for writing a story about any of them.

I have read many stories about Jesus, his apostles, and the like, but usually the reason is not the storyline so much as probably what lessons that the author is trying to illustrate using these characters as the basis of a story.

One of my most favorite female characters is Cleopatra. Of all the women in history, she interests me the most. I personally do not believe that her story has ever been told to truly justify the love of two Roman soldiers for her. There is a mystery there that has never been satisfactorily told as far as I am concerned.

If one takes the time to examine the life of Caesar, one has to be amazed at his own conquests which finally take him to Egypt whereupon he takes up with Cleopatra and stays in Egypt for months at a time. Why? He has a beautiful wife at home in Rome, a beautiful home, great reputation and future, so why is that he stays in Egypt to give Cleopatra a child as well. He has had many children of his own in Rome so what is one more child? Is it Egypt itself? Or is it the Queen that holds him?

If there is mystery in any of the lives of the characters mentioned above, then probably that would have to be the basis for a novel which might ensnare a reader to follow along with the author's mind in the telling of the tale.

The fact that Louis XIV did not know sufficiently the problem that beset Paris in the affair of the poisons is a mystery in itself. The fact that he was the victim of these witch's brews is even stranger to consider as who would be so bold and daring or so stupid and dumb as to try to feed this kind of stuff to a KING. Unheard of, but it did happen.

Alexander's relationships with his own soldiers has much mystery intertwined with his journeys. Why is it that Alexander cannot see through several who he later decides may be a threat to him? Is he blinded by his own faith? Or were they simply that artful in their duplicity towards him?

This is the stuff of which novels may be written...In order to make a historical person interesting at all, one must know the small things that cause him to become the character that he has become...in Alexander's case, he is driven by his thirst for glory and recognition. Is that a good thing? Or is it a detrimental problem to solve? Louis XIV likewise is just as driven by that same goal: Gloire. Reputation!

Is it gloire for only themselves, but for their entire community? Who in the end benefits the most or suffers the most from these men's ambition to achieve their "gloire"?

What qualities made Genghis Khan be the recognized and acceptable leader of his tribes? Or that made George Washington recognized as a suitable leader of his regiment at such an early age? In the case of both GK and GW, it is their physique and height as well as their overall credibility in making courageous decisions. Both Louis XIV and Alexander are of medium height and did not dominate in a physical manner, but both George and Genghis have the advantage of great height and physical prominence.

Do those things matter? Yes, very much...Appearance matters totally to the kind of leadership that a person can exert upon others.