We have a new CD for my BodyPump class, and as I’ve stated before (without exaggeration) this is basically my only experience with music that is not sung by George Strait or Brad Paisley. My newest brush with relatively current pop culture: Candyman by Christina Aguilera. God, I love that song. I could YouTube it all day long if I didn’t think my co-workers would take my computer away.

I met him out for dinner on a Friday night
He really had me working up an appetite
He had tattoos up and down his arm
There’s nothing more dangerous than a boy with charm
He’s a one stop shop, makes the panties drop
He’s a sweet-talkin’, sugar coated candy man
A sweet-talkin’, sugar coated candyman

Man, do I love the Candyman. I’m a charm-lover all the way. Oh, and tattoos.

We talk about Alphas and Betas a lot. A lot. And the mysterious Gamma, who’s the best of both worlds. But that’s like picking “extrovert” versus “introvert”—it’s rather broad. One of the few writing books I paw through frequently (I have dozens, but few are as dogearred as this one) is The Complete Writer’s Guide to Heroes and Heroines. I like it because I already have an idea what my character is like, but strangely, I don’t know how to brand him.

Debra Dixon teaches this fabulous class about GMC (Goal, Motivation, & Conflict). If you ever have an opportunity to go to it, do so. One of the assignments we did in her day-long seminar was, basically, brand the characters. You defined who the character was in two words. Essentially an adjective and noun that sums up the core of your character. For instance, you might refer to Mr. Darcy as: “stuffy prig” or “honorable gentleman”—both of those would rather fit, but at the core, Mr. Darcy is more the latter. Anyway, when branding my characters, I usually read through the descriptions for the heroes for inspiration. It sometimes jogs my brain into finding the right adjective.

Then I try to tape the character name and descriptors somewhere so they are there in my mind. (This is a necessary step. I forget about my breakfast toast most mornings until about 11 am or so, so taping the reminders keeps the core branding words in my mind as I’m letting the scenes I’m writing unfold.)

For me, it’s like improv acting. You give the actor the type of character they’re playing and then tell them to make up a dialogue with that character. The grumpy professor is going to have a different sort of scene than the perky cheerleader. It helps me keep in character. Otherwise everyone would act like Captain Jack Sparrow in my books all the time. Which doesn’t work nearly as much as you might think.

If you want a brief breakdown of the character types, go here: http://www.tamicowden.com/heroes.htm. They’re really good. Me, Candyman lover, find Charmers the most irresistible. Though Charmers with a layer of Swashbuckler are even better.

Hardy Cates is the protective bad-boy. Or maybe the bad-boy warrior. Your pick. He definitely has a core of protecting those he loves, but he’s so clearly from the wrong side of the tracks.

Gage from Sugar Daddy was the overbearing chief. Which is why I spent so much of the book thinking, “What a jerk.”

One of my other favorite heroes, Richard, from Jill Barnett’s Dreaming was the “Lost Soul” sort, but also a hero, protector. Like a “brooding warrior.” He wanted to protect Lettie from himself, because he believed he was unworthy of love. Lettie on the other hand was a cross between a waif and a free spirit, with the free spirit predominant. Definitely a girl who marched to her own drummer. She was an “innocent optimist” which Richard tried to rub out of her again and again, to protect her. In every scene, you’d see the innocent optimist crop up and play against the brooding warrior. Everyone learned from each other until it all worked out to the happy ending. Everyone stayed in character with their branding.

If I were to character brand one of my characters, just for practice, let’s use Luc: Luc is definitely the charmer type. Easily the charmer. With a wide streak of swashbuckler thrown in to make up for the fact he hasn’t been able to do anything for thousands of years. A dash of bad boy to account for his cynicism. But definitely the charmer because he’s got irresponsibility down to an artform. Luc is my “Machiavellian charmer” and that is unlikely to change much.

There. Done. Taped on my keyboard for easy reference. Scenes might go a little more smoothly when I improv along now. Now it’s your turn.

Okay, so can you guys “brand” your characters in two words? Give it a whirl.