Vanity Characters vs. Story Characters

In a previous post, I invented a categorization system for fiction based on its intent. I created three broad categories—Propaganda, Entertainment, and Art—and attempted to explain what they were.

Ultimately, I think this mental exercise was a little bit too broad for its own good. Nevertheless, sometimes these sorts of theoretical experiments and speculative pigeonholing can be a great catalyst for thought and discussion.

Today, I’m going to do the same, but with two types of character: the Vanity Character and the Story Character.

So what do these two categories mean?

A Vanity Character is a character who only exists as a trophy or decoration. Common Vanity Characters include things like fursonas, “original characters”, and so forth. The defining feature of these characters is that they are not designed to participate in a narrative. Often their defining features are limited to their appearance, and they exist solely to decorate a userpage or give someone something to draw.

A Story Character is a character who exists to be a part of a narrative. Story Characters are designed to play a role (large or small) in a story. Their traits and appearance are defined by the narrative they are in. Since the essence of story is Conflict, they also usually change in some way.

Now, this is where things get tricky. Thinking of characters in these terms requires an important caveat: these categories are not mutually exclusive. A Vanity Character can be part of a narrative, and a Story Character can be used to decorate a userpage. Why, my current avatar is a Story Character being used as a Vanity Character (depending if I changed it or not).

So why make this distinction at all? What purpose do these categories serve? Well, I’m glad you asked Jimmy (do you mind if I call you Jimmy?).

The major reason relates to a common mistake among amateur writers. Many inexperienced authors misuse their Vanity Character as a Story Character. A character who is designed exclusively to be visually interesting or to stand in for its creator isn’t necessarily a good fit for a story. A story can be built around characters, yes, but this is usually much more difficult than going the other way around.

This problem is the root of the Self-Insert or Mary Sue: widely derided character archetypes that don’t work well in an actual narrative. But denigrating a Mary Sue or Self-Insert based solely on their use in stories misses half the point. These characters generally don’t work in stories, but they do work in their other context: as decoration and trophies.

Now, obviously, neither of these types of characters are inherently bad or good. A Story Character can be shallow or interesting, depending on how they are written. A Vanity Character can be useful, if used in their proper context. And as noted above, they can be used in each others’ roles. Execution is, as always, the more important factor than character type.

Thanks for reading. As always, comments, criticism, and counterpoints are welcome. As with all my blog posts, coming up with a pointless or dumb idea is well worth starting a discussion.