If you’d asked me in January what my 2016 New Year’s Resolution was, I would have told you that it was to (finally) watch Supernatural, the WB series just going into its twelfth year. Set the bar low, right? Still, I wasn’t convinced I’d actually achieve it. I’d been hearing about how great the series was for the last eight years, and hadn’t managed it.
Forces conspired to make sure I had some extra time in early March, however, and one night I sat down to watch the first episode. Long story short, I watched all eleven seasons in a six week period. Then I fell into a bereft state, knowing the journey was, if not over, at least suspended. So I lost myself in YouTube videos of Supernatural Conventions, read articles, found other Supernatural fans to fangirl out with, and exhorted friends to watch it, just so I’d be able to talk to them about it. In June, when my obsession had died down enough to allow a few rational thoughts to bounce around my head, I started to wonder… why?
Why had the show affected me so much? There are other series I like; I have favourite movies and characters, but Supernatural hit me like a ton of emotional belonging. And so I started to break it down.
The premise is right up my alley: brothers fighting supernatural monsters to avenge their mother’s death. But that’s not enough on its own. The story arcs are engaging. The soundtrack is incredibly well done — so much so that there’s a particular piece of piano music that inspires in me instant, Pavlovian sobbing. But good music does not an engaging TV series make. No, the more I thought about it, the more I realised that what makes Supernatural great is the characters; or, rather, the way the characters are written, directed, and acted. They are some of the most authentic characters you’ll find on the screen. So, even on those occasions when the meta-story wandered off and got a bit lost (I’m looking at you, seasons six and seven), the characters kept me coming back again and again.
With that worked out, I went back and watch it again — yes, all eleven seasons — and, this time, I paid more attention to the writing; to the way the characters were give deep, emotional, authentic life. These are the top three things I noticed.
Oh, one more thing: The title of this post is something of a misnomer. None of the following points were new to me, much as I suspect they won’t be new to you. So I didn’t so much “learn” them from Supernatural, as I saw them brought to life in a way that resonated with me and will, I hope, make my writing stronger. But “Three Lessons on Writing Authentic Characters that are Perfectly Illustrated in Supernatural” doesn’t roll off the tongue nearly so well.
And so, with no further ado…
1. Characters rarely say what they actually think and feel.
As you know, one of the most annoying types of dialogue is “as you know” dialogue, where one character says something to another solely for the purpose of informing the audience.
One of the things I love about the characters in Supernatural is that, not only do the characters not do this, they also rarely, if ever, reveal their true thoughts and feelings — at least, not until they’re pushed into it through either intense fear or anger. There are often moments where the Dean and Sam are cruising around in their Chevy Impala, both with body language screaming “I’m in pain!” or “I’m scared!”, but not a line of dialogue is exchanged. The audience knows what’s going on in each character’s head — we can see it in the set of their jaws and the looks in their eyes — but they don’t talk about it. And that tension is exquisitely, painfully beautiful.
Part of the magic of those scenes lies with the writers, and part with the actors. We don’t have the luxury of visuals when we’re writing novels and short stories, but that doesn’t mean the lesson isn’t valid. As they say, actions speak louder than words.
2. A character’s past experiences informs her present choices.
If there’s one thing I’ve learned from Lisa Cron over the years, it’s the above sentence. But, generally, I can’t stand flashbacks in movies or TV shows. They’re all-too-often trite, overdone and, unnecessary.
Except when they’re not.
We don’t really get flashbacks in Supernatural until season three, and, by that time, the characters are well established. The purpose of the flashbacks is not to explain who the characters are or where they’ve come from — that’s done, and done well, in the present day stories. No, the purpose of flashbacks in Supernatural is to give context and depth to the emotionally-based decisions the characters make in the present day.
So often, I’ve heard writers — and writing teachers — talk about flashbacks as though they’re the second most evil thing you could include in your story. (The first, of course, would be adverbs.) And then there’s the old chestnut about “no backstory in the front half”. But, really, the best rule to follow when it comes to flashbacks is simply: No poorly motivated or executed flashbacks. Ever.
3. Antagonists don’t think of themselves as “bad guys.”
We all know that the antagonist is the hero of his own story. Stories where the antagonist is a two-dimensional figure of monolithic evil are so three centuries ago. But knowing it and executing it are two very different things.
Supernatural does a wonderful job of creating antagonists that are every bit as authentic and popular as the protagonists. I’m not talking about the “monster of the week” type bad guys, who are more henchmen of evil than anything else, but the more long-term story-arc antagonists. So, how do the writers do it?
Firstly, every antagonist has their own backstory. They have a reason for what they’re doing. They’re not stupid or self-destructive (unless that’s part of their backstory), and they don’t do evil things for no reason. And, more importantly, they really don’t care about the protagonists at all — at least, not until the protagonists get in their way.
At every Convention, the actors who play these antagonists get asked the same question: “What does it feel like to play the bad guy?” And I think the answers they give reveal a great deal about how to approach writing an authentic antagonist:
Mark Sheppard: He refers to Crowley as “the last sane man in the universe”. If everyone just did what he said, things would run smoothly, and there would never be any problems.
Mark Pellegrino: He doesn’t see Lucifer as a bad guy at all — he’s a guy who was betrayed by his family, and he wants revenge. Sure, Lucifer takes it a bit further than most of us would, but he’s understandable. He’s sympathetic.
James Patrick Stuart: “The ironic thing is that I am the good guy. They’re the bad guys. To me it’s the story of a couple of pr*cks who won’t do what I tell them to do.”
If we approach writing antagonists with that perspective, it will go a long way to making sure they’re as authentic as they can possibly be.
Are you a Supernatural fan? What are your favourite movies and TV shows for lessons on writing? Or, what do you think it the most important thing when creating authentic characters?
Wish you could buy this author a cup of joe?
Now, thanks to tinyCoffee and PayPal, you can!
About Jo Eberhardt
Jo Eberhardt is a writer of speculative fiction, mother to two adorable boys, and lover of words and stories. She lives in rural Queensland, Australia, and spends her non-writing time worrying that the neighbor's cows will one day succeed in sneaking into her yard and eating everything in her veggie garden.
Jo, I love how I can call all the things I enjoy, reading, watching movies, research :) One of my friends, Ellen Jackson, a fantastic PB-writer, said something that resonates the most for me for stories: heart, story, mechanics.
Oh, yes. It’s all research — even lying down and thinking the afternoon away. Best job ever. :)
Hi Jo – I’m a little embarrassed to tell you that I’d never heard of Supernatural, and presumed it was an Aussie thing. Till I Googled it. And once again, I learn the lesson that keeps on giving (and these days, keeps on recurring): that I’m an old fogey, hopelessly out of touch with current culture. (Really, it’s been around since ’05? And I’ve never heard of it? And it’s got a huge fanbase, too. Whoa.)
Anyway, I do the same thing these days – try to figure out what’s working about character and story as I watch TV and movies. And, in some cases, what’s not working. For example, this past week I saw The Revenant, starring DiCaprio. I can’t tell you how many times I reached for the remote to turn it off. But the storyteller in me just couldn’t pull the trigger to put an end to the yawn-inducing torture. I’d heard the violence was a bit unnecessarily graphic, but this was not what prodded my remote-control trigger-finger. I was simply bored.
What kept me hanging in there, though, was an earnest desire to figure out why it wasn’t working. In brief (and in a spoiler-free fashion), I wasn’t buying the characters. I had no emotion for Leo because I didn’t buy his empathy or sorrow – and hence, I didn’t buy his longing for vengeance. All I could see was Leo, dressed up in excellent period attire, getting intense in gritty scenes that seemed designed to win Oscars rather than move audience members in a personal way.
It was disappointing because this movie should’ve been right up my alley. But, for me, it was a gutter ball. Didn’t nick a single one of my emotional pins. I wondered afterward if writing has made me a tougher critic. Or if it lessens my enjoyment. Probably. But I also realize that what I might’ve considered “mindless entertainment” a decade ago was probably actually carefully crafted storytelling.
Wonderful observations, Jo, even for an old fogey without any reference to your prompt material.
“But I also realize that what I might’ve considered “mindless entertainment” a decade ago was probably actually carefully crafted storytelling.”
I think this is such an important revelation. Yes, I think that being writers makes us tougher critics, but it also means that when we come across something phenomenal, we can see the genius that went into it.
I haven’t seen The Revenant, but your description pretty much aligns with my thoughts after seeing the trailer. So I think I’ll be giving that one a miss. (In saying that, it took me 8 years to watch Supernatural — I don’t exactly jump on bandwagons quickly!)
The series I got hooked on this way was Monarch of the Glen. I know. Not very edgy. But I got so drawn in to this world and so attached to the characters that I watched the whole thing three times. Third time was the charm, though, because I was looking for ‘why?” And for me, your three top things apply. Goofy as things got in the story sometimes, no one did anything without a reason, no one ever said what they meant, and the so-called bad guys never saw themselves as such. There was one gaping plot hole in the sixth season, but by then I was a believer. And then there’s the scenery, but that’s another story. Now I have to watch ‘Supernatural’.
One of the telling things in what you wrote is that, despite the plot hole in season six, you kept on watching — because you believed in the characters. To me, that reinforces how important it is in our writing that our characters are authentic. Readers will forgive plot holes and inaccuracies and even mediocre writing if the characters are authentic and engaging enough. (Although, obviously we’re aiming to have none of those weaknesses!)
I’ve been with SPN from the beginning. I loved S1 through 3. The acting was rock solid and so were the characters. The show was whip smart, humorous and genuinely scary. It was also thought provoking as it raised questions about life and destiny, certainly not what you would expect from a horror show on the WB.
In season 4 the show lost its way and still hasn’t found it again. The introduction of the angels was a detriment. The writers became lazy. Before it was the Winchesters against a ‘normal’ world that feared and misunderstood them. We got to see Dean and Sam discover new things about each other. This was especially poignant because they were estranged from each other. It was extremely interesting to see how each brother related to the people they tried to help.
Now? There’s always some tiresome Big Bad seeking to destroy the world. A certain angel can heal them with a wave of his hand. He transports them where ever they want to go. No more research scenes, no more conflict, no more road trips. Seems that the writers became lazy. They also began to pander to much to the fans. They didn’t own their stories. Fans knew if they complained about certain stories online that the show would drop that story like a bad habit. That’s happened several times to major story arcs. The writers have admitted that they seldom consult the show’s Bible anymore, and it shows. Gaping plot holes, inconsistent writing…if an amateur writer did that they’d be crucified. A so-called professional can get away with all that and more.
The writers on the show have realized their mistake and they have tried to de-power that angel character on various occasions, but he’s still there. His powers wax and wane according to the whims of the show. I consider him to be an over-used, convenient plot device. That’s the problem when a writer puts a powerful creature in with a bunch of humans. The humans are always overshadowed. SPN lacks balance. Sometimes I wish that Joss Whedon had created Supernatural instead of Eric Kripke. Whedon knows how to run an ensemble. The leads are not overshadowed but he gives the supporting characters their due.
I can’t fangirl over Supernatural anymore. Just because a show has lasted over a decade doesn’t mean that it’s still good. The points raised in the article are good ones, but Supernatural is definitely showing its age. Maybe the SPN powers that be should read this article again to remind themselves what the show was about in the beginning.
I still love Supernatural due to the relationship of the Winchesters. I totally agree that the angels were and are a mistake. I’ve stated many times that it makes it too easy for the Winchesters to always have an angel to zap them back to health or to assist in resolving problems. I liked it better when the Winchesters had to figure it out themselves or with the help of other hunters.
Hi Lorie. Personally, I like the angels. (Other than Metatron — him I could do without.) But I hear where you’re coming from. Nevertheless, as you say, it’s the relationship between the brothers that make it such an engaging, awesome show.
If we’re going to learn anything from that, it needs to be that people will put up with aspects of a story they don’t like, as long as the characters are well rendered.
The reason SUPERNATURAL went from “the monster of the week” format is that there are only so many monsters out there, and the writers were quickly running out of them.
The angels and demons story line has been great and bad, but it never has run out of steam which has allowed the show to remain fresh and interesting.
If the angels and demons bore you, that’s your loss.
If Castiel bores you, what’s wrong with you, girl? (grin)
I’m curious to know if your theory about why Supernatural changed from the “monster of the week” format is based on interviews with the writers/creator, or personal belief. I’ve read and watched a number of interviews with Kripke and Robert Singer, and they always say that Kripke had planned for the angels/demons storyline from the moment they knew they weren’t being cancelled mid-season 1.
But I’m watching interviews that took place many years after the fact. I’m curious if back during the filming of those early seasons, they had something different to say.
I have a vague memory of someone saying something about it, but I can’t quote chapter and verse.
However, I come to this idea more as a writer and literary analyst. The Old Testament Universe really opened up the story telling, and it allowed them to create long story arcs they couldn’t do in the early seasons.
Yes, absolutely. I think it made for a deeper, more complex and nuanced story overall. Especially because the writers built in the backstory as to why Dean and Sam were important in the whole thing. (From their parents’ backgrounds through to the Cupid episode, where it was established that Heaven manipulated events to make sure they were born.)
Thanks for your reply, Laverne. I don’t agree with everything you said — obviously, based on my fangirling post! — but I hear what you’re saying.
Interestingly, I feel that season 5 is actually the strongest season. Seasons 1-3 are fantastic, but they still feel (to me) like introduction seasons, where the show is still finding its feet and figuring out where it wants to go and what it wants to be. Whereas seasons 4 and 5 really double-down on the overall story and culminate in the most perfect season finale I’ve ever seen.
I’ve watched Swan Song (season 5 finale) six times in the last six months — and talking about it now makes me want to watch it again. My favourite moment is the scene where the forces of good square off against the forces of evil in an epic showdown, and then you hear the revving on the Impala — and along comes the human contingent. The symbolism of that scene — humanity forming its own side and f-ing up the “plan” with their free will — hits me right in the “I can do anything” button every time I watch it. And that’s just one aspect of the symbolism in that scene.
Personally, I love Castiel. And I think the angels were a great addition to the story world. But you’re not the first person I’ve heard say otherwise. I think the reason their inclusion had such a big impact is that introducing them changed the feel of the show significantly, and it can never really go back to what it was. I think it was a great change, but I totally understand that not everyone does. Or did.
It’s also important to note that Kripke’s vision for the show was the first five seasons. His focus was always on trying to make it to the end of season 5 — Swan Song was his “love letter” to the show. But he left as showrunner after that, and, without a strnog, long-term vision or the creator at the helm, season 6 and 7 did flounder.
I’m curious to know if by “now” you mean, as of the end of season 11. I ask because a few of your statements remind me of how I was feeling back in season 7 and 8. For me, later seasons (especially 10 and 11) turned all that around. And season 12 looks like it’s a return to smaller stories, with the focus back on family.
Either way, We agree on what authentic characters need, even if not on whether Supernatural still delivers the brilliance it began with. And, really, isn’t that what it’s all about?
Love Supernatural.
Recently, I started watching a show I’ve heard a lot about, but like you, I had to find the time. The Good Wife. I’m hooked and so is my oldest daughter who happened on me watching an episode and stayed watching with me, reeled in by the writing and acting.
As you pointed out, it’s not so much the truth as it is the authentic and unique perspective of how the truth is perceived by the characters that hooks us every time.
Awesome post, Jo. It’s a keeper for me. It’s going up on my bulletin board by the desk where I write. Thank you.
Thanks, Bee. I’ve heard so much about The Good Wife — it’s another show on my “will watch one day” list. When I finally get to it, I’ll make sure to fangirl about it with you. :)
All excellent things to keep in mind, Jo. The other night I had trouble falling asleep because I was thinking about what awful things I could do to the characters in my WIP to bring out those deep character issues. Thanks.
Ah, the joy of being a sadistic writer — getting to imagine all the terrible ways to force our characters to show their true personalities. I hope you work it out and get some sleep. :)
I love Supernatural, too, and especially Dean and Sam. Incredible characters and Jensen Ackles and Jared Padalecki play them very well. Great points, Jo!
Their acting is absolutely amazing. Of course, I’ve become more and more impressed with Misha Collins’s acting, too — especially in season 11.
Glad you enjoyed the post!
“the best rule to follow when it comes to flashbacks is simply: No poorly motivated or executed flashbacks. Ever.”
I much prefer this advice to the “avoid flashbacks or prologues” advice so often given. Any part of the novel, poorly written, is a detriment. But I feel free to use any of these things if it works for the story.
Any writing advice that makes absolute judgements is suspect — except for the advice that says no writing advice is absolute.
At the end of the day, it’s all about what the story needs.
Important points for sure, Jo. I’d have to tap two David Simon shows, Homicide and The Wire, for writing lessons. Both of them illustrate your three points. And the most powerful scenes from both have also plunged me into your dilemma of how to convey the complicated silent communication between the characters without the visuals. Action, yes, and atmosphere: I try different things.
Thanks, Barbara. I definitely think it’s challenging to convey some of those aspects without visual aid. But it’s so perfect when an author nails it.
The Wire is another series on my radar, that I’ll eventually get to. I’ve heard nothing but good things about it. Maybe next year. :)
Great article about a great show! It is the characters – how they are written and portrayed by the actors – that make this a powerful, much beloved show! Thanks for encapsulating that so well in your article!
You’re so welcome.
I must admit that I’m not much of a TV watcher. I have it on most of the time, but I am usually doing other things. My roommate is a Supernatural fan. I’ve watched it, but I am not really a fan. This is strange since I love paranormal. My favorite series is the written word rather than movies or programs. I love the Outlander series, by Diana Gabaldon. It has a bit of everything–sci fi, romance, and paranormal. The author has planned 9 books and I am on book 7. I am usually not a fan of romance, but this series held me tight. I love all of the characters and she deftly manages to make the reader care about each and every character and feel what they feel. I have not been able to get into the TV series on this as well as the books. Of course, this is normal for me.
I’m not a TV watcher either, to be honest. (Which is why it took me so long to watch Supernatural.) I don’t even own a TV. So when I watch something, I actually have to make the effort to sit down and watch a show on my computer.
Interestingly, I caught one episode of Supernatural way back when, while I was at somebody else’s house, and while I thought it was entertaining, I didn’t seek out any more episodes. I think it’s a show you have to watch from the beginning to feel the emotional connection. (Or, at least, from the start of a season.)
These lessons, of course, apply to books as much as TV shows or movies, and Outlander is a great example of a series with great characterisation.
I have never had anyone I recommended SUPERNATURAL to not fall in love with this show and its characters.
The characters and the actors who play them just nail it. Even Crowley, King of Hell, is multisided with his secret desire to be a Winchester brother.
You know the characters are great when Dean’s beloved Baby is an important character.
And the dialogue is so clever. Do a search for “SUPERNATURAL quotes” and check them out.
Marilynn, how good was the episode Baby??? I heard Jenson Ackles talking about it at one point, and he said, “I read the script, and thought: this is either going to be a disaster, or absolutely brilliant.” I’m glad it was the latter.
Crowley, to me, is a great example of the excellent characterisation in the show. He’s often an antagonist, sometimes an ally (but only when it helps Crowley), and he has a rich backstory that’s revealed throughout the seven seasons he’s been on the show. We know who he was as a human, why he sold his soul, what his relationships were like with his mother and his son, and the finale of season 8 was an amazing look into his innermost wishes and desires, including WHY he secretly wishes he was a Winchester. His relationship with Dean is complicated and nuanced and so full of honest contradictions that he’s lovable even when he’s being a b*stard.
I loved the episode “Baby.”
I have a theory that Baby has some God/Chuck in her because she always seems to have something to save the day, or stop the Apocalypse. She’s like the “Needful Room” in Hogwarts.
Oh, I love that theory. It could easily be supported by the fact that Chuck-the-writer starts out Swan Song by talking about Baby, and her history.
I pretty much did the same thing. Started watching last winter and watched as many seasons as I could on netflix. Currently waiting for season 11…But yes! The characters! That’s almost always what keeps me interested is the characters and their relationships with one another. I’m ok with the angels and demons, but the one thing I wish the show would quit doing is have Sam and Dean go behind the other’s back to do something that we all know is going to cause a huge rift – again. I adore Crowley. And Dean’s not too hard to look at…not that that has anything to do with why I like the show.
That said, it’s the same lesson I’ve learned from my most favorite books; it’s characters that make the story.
FYI for those who like Supernatural, try Buffy. Another brilliant show.
Isn’t it amazing how it draws you in, right from the very first episode? Yes, I agree that it makes me cringe every time one of the brothers goes behind the other’s back. But I think that tension adds to the show overall. They always have a “good” reason for doing it — even when we, as outsiders, can see that if they’d just be honest with each other, things would be fine. There was less of that in season 11, and season 12 is supposed to be a return to family values, with less of that conflict. So, here’s hoping.
Yes, these lessons are present in every great book. I just loved seeing them played out so brilliantly on the screen as well.
Excellent reminders. I’ve never watched Supernatural, but it sounds like my former employer could be an antagonist on it. He said “Teamwork is everybody doing what I tell them to do.”
I love your analysis. I’ve been a hot and cold enthusiast, largely depending on how “huh?” the current season was. Then, thanks to the majic of the WB, I binge caught up. About three or four seasons went into the ‘huh” pile.
There is a question of how the show progresses as it has flushed all the pagan gods down the drain, left tread marks over the Dark/Light trope in having anthropomorphic God and Nox/Demi-Urge, and cleaned out even Gnostism, Deism, and Cabala. Not much left. Unless they take another, hopefully better thought out, run at Wiccans.
The explanation as to why the ‘God-talisman’ created screams in fandom but was decent Theology. It didn’t work, because God decided that it wouldn’t work, and then worked because God decided that it would work.
On the humorous side, I absolutely didn’t publically say it because of the strange looks it would caused, but once the “God is on Walkabout” trope came to light, I convinced myself that God was the Impala. Before you snort hot liquid through your nostrils, answer this. Name Anything, including the MCs, that were in more episodes….
We were discussing Baby as God or, at least, God’s instrument up above. Two obvious examples are “Swan Song” about stopping the Apocalypse and “Baby” where the car has a hair pin that saves the day.
Hi Jo, sorry I am so late to this post. But I feel about The Originals in exactly the same way as you have written about Supernatural. I have even printed out transcripts of The Originals and yellow highlighted some the psychologically driven dialog as inspiration. Have you seen The Originals? Does this mean I must watch Supernatural? Because I will! Great post. Thank you so much!