# Character development; the nuts & bolts



## Ralph Rotten (Mar 22, 2018)

Several recent threads have skirted the topic of character development (they were actually about other topics but strayed into that arena.)  Like a lotta people, it took me a few years to understand how this was done (or even what it meant.)  So I thought it might be a good time to start a thread on how each of us goes about making our characters real and interesting.

Note: This is not a theoretical discussion, but more of a nuts & bolts talk.  How do you illustrate your characters?


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Mar 22, 2018)

First off I wanna state for the record that I am no Stephen King, I have not written a NYT best seller [yet].  However, I do get a fair number of good reviews that specifically mention my characters.  I'm better'n some, but worse than others.

Here is my process for developing characters:
First I start with the introduction.  This is usually one of those clock-stopping segways where I talk about the character and let the reader know what kinda person they are.  Depending on the voice I am using (1st person, 3rd, etc) I may delve into their background---where it speaks to their present circumstances. I try to give the reader an idea what kind of person the character is; hostile, laid back, type A personality, activist...  For a main character I may spend a page or more on this intro. For lesser characters I usually only do a paragraph (although I have used pages for a few ancillary characters, but only because I was using them to indirectly illustrate one of the main characters.

NOTE: This is where I see a lot of new writers get it wrong by describing every stitch of clothing.  No one cares if your hero wears brown pants, but if he wears a shirt with a picture of Marilyn Manson-that's worth mentioning *because it speaks to the character's personality.  *With descriptions be choosey and only talk about things that tell you about the person.

After the introduction I tend to use a lot of brush strokes.  Essentially these are small details that further illustrate the character.  I don't say he used his hand to shoo away a fly unless there is something about that hand that is remarkable & speaks to the nature of the character. Everybody has hands, but does your character have clean hands or thick hands or a 13 tattoo on the web of his right hand?  Are their hands manicured, does he shoo that fly with disgust or in a strictly reflexive manner (indicating that he/she is used to shooing flies away.)  Usually these brush strokes are just a word or two during dialog or narration.

Indirect illustration: This is another fav of mine where I illustrate a character by letting you see them through the eyes of another. This is actually doing double-duty because it paints them both.  How someone else sees your MC tells you about them both.

Language: Everyone talks differently, and I don't just mean accents. Everyone you meet has a different cadence, different vocabulary, different tone. Most people do not obey proper rules of language when they speak.  Above all, I strive to give each character a different voice of their own.  My thinking is that you should know who is talking before you get to the "He said/she said" attribution, just by the way they say things.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Mar 22, 2018)

I disagree about how another character sees your MC tells about both. It can, and it cannot, depending on the reliability of that other character.


----------



## Blackstone (Mar 23, 2018)

I remember I recently observed an elderly, quite ordinary-looking old man take out a bus pass, only to reveal a battered old SLIPKNOT wallet. It was then I noticed on his wrist (under a very nice button shirt) he had the hint of some greenish sleeve tattoos. Totally not what I expected and to this day I wonder if he was some old rocker. 

He probably wasn't, of course, but the mind wanders as we try to make sense of the world and the people we encounter. Personally I like to try to replicate that conflict in my work and weave it in. I dislike it when writers obsessively describe things like eye color because they assume things like eyes to be of higher value than things like, well, wallets...but I also hate it when even unusual or cute information is added in an obvious effort to 'develop' without it being relevant to understanding the character's motives or the story as a whole.

I maintain few readers care about how fleshed out a character is. Rather, they care about how interesting a character is. There is a slight but important difference between the two.

Since you are asking for nuts and bolts: One method I really like - though have not quite mastered - is what I call the _Slow Slow Starvation Method_. 

Basically this consists of providing as little detail about your characters as possible at first and then gradually throw little pieces of backstory like crumbs scattered across a wide expanse of the narrative. So in the opening paragraph or two they are just a name walking up or down the stairs, perhaps with a couple of pieces of trivial detail that hint at character - a loose shoelace, a limp, etc. This might be kind of what you're referring to with brush strokes, however I would take it further since you mentioned this: "*First I start with the introduction. This is usually one of those clock-stopping segways where I talk about the character and let the reader know what kinda person they are*" 

 I would stop and ask you why it is you need even to do this? 

Ah, but of course i know the answer...it is because that's how many books are written, right? That may well be true I will tell you though that as a reader unless your prose is electrifying and this character is the most fascinating person ever I can _almost _guarantee that introduction won't be especially interesting or enjoyable to read. That is not a reflection on your skills but rather on the simple truth I am reading a story, not a character profile, and I want action. I don't need you to tell me what kinda person they are even if it may turn out to be important (and let us assume it would). I don't need to know that because that is one of the things I am, hopefully, going to learn in the ensuing book (even if that isn't necessarily what the book is about) and I can wait. It's more fun that way, I think.

By employing a method of slowly drip-feeding details over the course of pages and chapters and using other characters and plot points for exposition you should be able to eventually communicate this effectively without any need for dedicated backstory or introduction, in my opinion. In general there are more of us writers who say too much than those who say too little.


----------



## Bayview (Mar 23, 2018)

I think the difference between giving character info at the start or dripped throughout may come down to the focus of the story.

I write romance in a variety of sub-genres, and in some of the sub-genres (like a straight-up contemporary) the main conflict is internal, meaning that the characterization is the heart of the story. If I gave all that away at the very start, there'd be no more story! So I generally start at the outside of the character, showing readers the character's actions, then worm my way further in, helping readers to _understand_ the actions, motivations, etc.

But in other sub-genres, those with more external conflict... well, I'm still writing romance, so I still do gradual character revelations throughout the story, but I don't need to depend on them for all of the conflict of the story. I imagine if I were writing something plot-based I'd try to establish the character early on to get that out of the way so I can focus readers attention on the plot? (I'm just speculating on that - I don't write plot-based stories, and don't read too many either).


----------



## Jack of all trades (Mar 23, 2018)

I think there's a difference of opinion about what "fleshed out " means.

To some, it seems to mean physical appearance.

To me, it means the inner workings of the character. The morals, values, ethics, hopes, dreams, and driving forces. Making a character 3D, to me, means making that character realistic, and interesting.

So, to me, hair and eye color may not matter. The interesting wallet and tattoos would matter. They would give hints to the character's personality. And personality is the gold! 

There are times that physical appearance may be important. I have a Native American character in one of my books, who has long black hair. I don't bother with other details, though. 

Most of the characters in that book do not have a physical appearance description at all. The readers can imagine the characters anyway they want. What matters to the story is how the characters behave.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Mar 23, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> I disagree about how another character sees your MC tells about both. It can, and it cannot, depending on the reliability of that other character.




I would be most interesting in hearing how you illustrate your characters, how do you introduce them, do you pepper their actions with hints and details or do it all in one sweep?  Nuts & bolts.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Mar 23, 2018)

I like how Bayview broke it down between types of stories that she writes.  I've never written romance so I am clueless about how it is structured.


----------



## JJBuchholz (Mar 23, 2018)

Character development in a lot of my fiction (most notably my ongoing series) follow these steps:

1) Introduction/physical appearance. People need a little bit of a description to visualize what they are looking at.
2) Mental/emotional state. Is this character normal, or do they have a flaw right off the bat? Are they dealing with something that will be integral to the story?
3) Actions. How does this character react under pressure? How do they interact with their cast, and/or the story?
4) Conflict. Is the character in conflict with another? Is he or she fighting their own personal battles?
5) Resolution. The character either found what they are looking for, or have realized what they're after might take some time.
6) Arc. Arc either ends and a new one begins, or current arc continues long term, or secondary arc occurs.

-JJB


----------



## bdcharles (Mar 23, 2018)

I treat them as real people, so I try and depict them doing real-people  things - exhibiting body language, talking with verbal tics and whatnot,  having flaws and strengths that draw people to them. It's as if I am spending time with them, and getting to know them that way, chronicling as I go. They make mistakes and occasionally they get something dead-on. I might  occasionally drop in a little bit about their phsyical appearance either  as description or while they are doing something.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Mar 23, 2018)

Here is a character introduction I did a few years back. This is a minor character, but I gave him a larger focus so I could use his views and impressions to help paint the main character and the setting (they're in a bunker).
___________________________________________________________________

       Ernie Simms was a slight man.  Never very fast, or very smart, he found his success by working harder and longer than the smarter, faster competition.  He compensated in other ways as well.  To make up for brains, he learned to double and triple check everything.  Then he invented better processes to make him faster.  And to that end he kept the shelves stocked and the cashiers online.  As a store manager he had been slow at the start, but in time he found ways to compensate where he was weak.  He knew his limits and rarely strayed from the course. 

So it was all the more odd to find himself being led through the bowels of a secret bunker complex by a madman wearing a massive handgun.  That was the only way he could explain Alex.  _Who in the hell spends millions building something like this on the odd chance that the world will end?  Who does that?_  Then there was that gun again; stainless steel with those ornate grips, the hammer already cocked back like he was ready to shoot someone any second now.  Add some camo pants and a black T-shirt, and top it off with a bat-belt full of accessories, and the image was complete.


----------



## Bayview (Mar 23, 2018)

I don't think I've ever done a character description that straightforwardly. I tend to be quite a bit sneakier.

I'm reading a book right now (well, listening to it)... _The Passage_, by Justin Cronin. He's giving EXHAUSTIVE characterization for loads of characters, and I'm really not sure it's justified. I mean, if he can tie everything together at the end, I'm going to be super-impressed and it will all have been worth while. But I'm really not sure he can, and if he can't... the time he spent giving me the backstory of the girl's mother, or the older nun, or any of the other characters who really, really seem like they're going to be bit players? It feels like too much detail. The book is 37 hours long (800 pages, apparently) so if there was anything that COULD be cut, I think he should have cut it.

It's not that the character development isn't done well... it really is. But I feel like I'm reading a series of character studies, not a novel.

On the other hand, if he manages to tie all this together and make it all relevant? Yowza!


----------



## Blackstone (Mar 23, 2018)

Bayview said:


> I think the difference between giving character info at the start or dripped throughout may come down to the focus of the story.
> 
> I write romance in a variety of sub-genres, and in some of the sub-genres (like a straight-up contemporary) the main conflict is internal, meaning that the characterization is the heart of the story. If I gave all that away at the very start, there'd be no more story! So I generally start at the outside of the character, showing readers the character's actions, then worm my way further in, helping readers to _understand_ the actions, motivations, etc.
> 
> But in other sub-genres, those with more external conflict... well, I'm still writing romance, so I still do gradual character revelations throughout the story, but I don't need to depend on them for all of the conflict of the story. I imagine if I were writing something plot-based I'd try to establish the character early on to get that out of the way so I can focus readers attention on the plot? (I'm just speculating on that - I don't write plot-based stories, and don't read too many either).



I'm not sure I buy that genre plays a huge part when it comes to good character development, however I do agree that there are some books which simply don't demand the same level of, shall we say, artfulness. 

I am going to dabble in a bit of literary snobbery here: I tend to think better books are the ones with more mystery and selective delivery with character info. 

I guess I might have read a semi-decent novel or two at some point where the bulk of the characterization and backstory came in ready-made chunks but I cannot remember any. I can see how in a novel where the characters were designed to be part of something bigger and where inter-personal conflict is generally not important, perhaps an epic set during a large-scale war, that could work but I am struggling. 

On the other hand I have read a proverbial boatload of self-published indies (thanks Amazon) where the author has deemed it necessary to provide a multi-paragraph (sometimes multi-page!) biography of each individual character upon their entry into the story. Sometimes these are actually quite well written as far as character synopses. 

The problem is even if this makes sense from the point of view of get-it-out-the-way-so-we-can-focus-on-the-plot it does not even accomplish this, in my view, for the simple fact people's brains (mine anyway) cannot withhold that amount of information in one swoop without context. The parachuting in of a backstory however well written does not work to its full power if I am not primed to receive it through gradual acclimatization.


----------



## Bayview (Mar 23, 2018)

Blackstone said:


> I'm not sure I buy that genre plays a huge part when it comes to good character development, however I do agree that there are some books which simply don't demand the same level of, shall we say, artfulness.
> 
> I am going to dabble in a bit of literary snobbery here: I tend to think better books are the ones with more mystery and selective delivery with character info.
> 
> ...



I think the classics often have some pretty in-your-face characterization - I'm thinking of the opening of _Pride and Prejudice_, for example, with the character sketches for each of the members of the family. Others as well.

In modern writing? I'm not as sure. But I certainly don't think there's anything automatically problematic about direct character description - I love Austen!


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Mar 23, 2018)

Bayview said:


> I don't think I've ever done a character description that straightforwardly. I tend to be quite a bit sneakier.



Nor do I.  I had to go back 4 books to find that snippet.  Usually my introductions are spread out over a page. 

Yep, introductions can be overdone.  Normally I don't do 'em for 3rd tier characters, but this one helped to tell the story while illuminating the hero, all in 2 short paragraphs.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Mar 23, 2018)

I don't think the classics are entirely relevant for a discussion about developing characters for modern character-driven fiction.  People wrote differently back then, writing has evolved.  If you wrote nowadays like Mary Shelly did, you would likely not interest any publishers.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Mar 23, 2018)

-----------------------


----------



## Jack of all trades (Mar 23, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> I would be most interesting in hearing how you illustrate your characters, how do you introduce them, do you pepper their actions with hints and details or do it all in one sweep?  Nuts & bolts.



My characters are very real to me. So I stay focused on the story and let them behave the they do.

I suppose, using hindsight, info about them comes out in bits and pieces.


----------



## Blackstone (Mar 24, 2018)

.


----------



## Blackstone (Mar 24, 2018)

Bayview said:


> I think the classics often have some pretty in-your-face characterization - I'm thinking of the opening of _Pride and Prejudice_, for example, with the character sketches for each of the members of the family. Others as well.
> 
> In modern writing? I'm not as sure. But I certainly don't think there's anything automatically problematic about direct character description - I love Austen!



Classics are a fair point. I think Ralph is right the sensibilities have changed, though. Whenever I read older books I am always amazed at how simple they are in terms of character dev. You can pretty much tell right away everything you need to know. 

Speaking of classics though I always was very impressed by the character evolution of Heathcliff from Wuthering Heights. While I still find he lacks much backstory (and to be fair he is an orphan) we arrive at a completely different place with that character than we start to the point it's almost unrecognizable and I find it quite refreshing, almost quite modern.

Anyway, so I do introductions too, I just try to keep them very limited and avoid them. I do think on reflection the number of characters is also a factor. Stories with fewer characters permit a more gradual progression because we generally spend more time with them. A book like War & Peace is always going to be a challenge to take the gradual approach with everybody.

I mentioned dialogue in a previous post and feel the need to expand on that. To me dialogue is and always will be the number one route to understanding a character. The reason I say that is because it allows an unfettered exposition of the character's mindset in a way that readers tend to pay attention to.

 Action is good too, but since body language is difficult to portray in words and not all stories are 'action heavy' I am a little skeptical that saying "Bill lights a cigarette with a shaking hand" gives you a vast insight into his psyche. It gives some, and depending on what else is going on it could be extremely powerful, however a lot of pieces need to be in play to turn what is a simple play-by-play into a display of deeper personality. 

On the other hand, writing a strong dialogue piece between, say, an adult child and their elderly, mother should provide ample opportunity to not only portray that relationship but a good deal of personal and inter-personal history.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Mar 24, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Here is a character introduction I did a few years back. This is a minor character, but I gave him a larger focus so I could use his views and impressions to help paint the main character and the setting (they're in a bunker).
> ___________________________________________________________________
> 
> Ernie Simms was a slight man.  Never very fast, or very smart, he found his success by working harder and longer than the smarter, faster competition.  He compensated in other ways as well.  To make up for brains, he learned to double and triple check everything.  Then he invented better processes to make him faster.  And to that end he kept the shelves stocked and the cashiers online.  As a store manager he had been slow at the start, but in time he found ways to compensate where he was weak.  He knew his limits and rarely strayed from the course.
> ...




This is much more straight forward than what I do.

In my books the character personalities are revealed through the story. Some of it comes from other characters, but that's sometimes reliable and sometimes not. For example, in my first teen detective book, it's pretty clear that the MC's uncle thinks the MC is irresponsible and lazy, but other characters rely on him. It's written in first person, so the MC's thoughts tell a lot about him. Mostly the info flows naturally. The only thing I look for a way to get in is the MC's age, gender and name, and all on the first page. Other than that basic info, the traits are revealed through story progression.

BTW, I think one has to be smart to come up with ways to do things more efficiently. And remembering to double and triple check things shows he has recall. Your character seems to me to have a lower opinion of his abilities than is accurate.


----------



## Sir-KP (Mar 24, 2018)

I do what the OP said there. I always take a chance of the way the character talks, the way they respond to things, their point of view regarding things, as well as what they are wearing and their physical traits.

I have an antagonist who is really brash and psychotic towards anyone else, but acts like total bro to his precious friend although sometimes he likes to mock him. I also have a protagonist that must act like a double agent; low key to two opposite things he needs to take care of. I can't imagine how to write these characters without doing what I said above.


----------



## Bayview (Mar 24, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> I don't think the classics are entirely relevant for a discussion about developing characters for modern character-driven fiction.  People wrote differently back then, writing has evolved.  If you wrote nowadays like Mary Shelly did, you would likely not interest any publishers.



Well, it was a bit of a subtopic. I agree that the classics aren't the best reference for how to write today, but I was responding to Blackstone saying that direct character description is rarely seen in "good character development", "better books" and who couldn't recall a "semi-decent novel" that used the technique. I think the classics are good rebuttals to those statements.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Mar 24, 2018)

As a reader, I have learned to dislike characterizations. Like others have said, they are not interesting reading. As Blackstone said, I don't even know if my brain can process them well enough. And I don't even trust them to fit the rest of the story.

I like to learn about characters by what they do, say, and think.

I write in a somewhat rigorous first person present, so I rarely do descriptions. It's not that I am intentionally doing a slow description, it's that it takes time even for the most obvious things. And sometimes a description just fits into a story, but that's the only time I do it. The following snippets from a first scene are not dragging out the information about her -- it's me being natural. And it's a physical thing, easily described.



> He holds out his arms; I'm supposed to study him. But I already knew he was scrawny. I could give him a fight if it wasn't for my leg.
> 
> "Follow me." I turn around and start limping towards the stairs. "Close the front door."
> 
> ...


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Mar 24, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> This is much more straight forward than what I do.
> 
> In my books the character personalities are revealed through the story. Some of it comes from other characters, but that's sometimes reliable and sometimes not. For example, in my first teen detective book, it's pretty clear that the MC's uncle thinks the MC is irresponsible and lazy, but other characters rely on him. It's written in first person, so the MC's thoughts tell a lot about him. Mostly the info flows naturally. The only thing I look for a way to get in is the MC's age, gender and name, and all on the first page. Other than that basic info, the traits are revealed through story progression.
> 
> BTW, I think one has to be smart to come up with ways to do things more efficiently. And remembering to double and triple check things shows he has recall. Your character seems to me to have a lower opinion of his abilities than is accurate.




Jack, I think you missed the point of this entire thread.  This is not a critique of my work, but a place for us to each discuss the nuts & bolts of how we each introduce and illustrate our characters. The idea is that by seeing the mechanics of how other writers develop characters, we may each learn something new.  How do you create your characters? Do you have a formal introduction or build it into the action? Do you try to do the work up-front or pepper the text with clues?  I wasn't being a smart-ass when I invited you to share your process in an earlier thread; I actually am interested in knowing how you build your characters.

_Ordinary people learn from their own mistakes, but the wise man learns from the mistakes of others_.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Mar 24, 2018)

Bayview said:


> Well, it was a bit of a subtopic. I agree that the classics aren't the best reference for how to write today, but I was responding to Blackstone saying that direct character description is rarely seen in "good character development", "better books" and who couldn't recall a "semi-decent novel" that used the technique. I think the classics are good rebuttals to those statements.




Twas not disagreeing with you, twas disagreeing with Blackstone.  I love many of the classics, but they are not the place to look for character development in the modern market.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Mar 24, 2018)

Emma posted this:

He holds out his arms; I'm supposed to study him. But I already knew he was scrawny. I could give him a fight if it wasn't for my leg.

"Follow me." I turn around and start limping towards the stairs. "Close the front door."

Dr. Tomens: "Let's go downstairs and talk. Do you need any help getting down the stairs?"
"No. Why would I? Do you need any help?" I HATE it when people focus on my leg.


Although a little rough at the end, this excerpt really does a great job with the brush strokes.  It illustrates the character both physically as well as mentally. In my mind I can envision the main character, she may have a game leg, but she's no push-over.


----------



## Tettsuo (Mar 24, 2018)

Funny, I just wrote a blog piece specifically about this.

https://www.harulestokeswrites.com/single-post/2018/03/18/My-Top-4-Methods-of-Character-Development


----------



## Blackstone (Mar 24, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> As a reader, I have learned to dislike characterizations. Like others have said, they are not interesting reading. As Blackstone said, I don't even know if my brain can process them well enough. And I don't even trust them to fit the rest of the story.
> 
> I like to learn about characters by what they do, say, and think.
> 
> I write in a somewhat rigorous first person present, so I rarely do descriptions. It's not that I am intentionally doing a slow description, it's that it takes time even for the most obvious things. And sometimes a description just fits into a story, but that's the only time I do it. The following snippets from a first scene are not dragging out the information about her -- it's me being natural. And it's a physical thing, easily described.



Hello Emma,

I really like this excerpt because it chords with what I believe in and have been trying to sort of say throughout this thread.

What's interesting about it for me is that at face value we only really get one piece of information and that is that they have something wrong with their leg and that they are ashamed of it. But actually, we get several. 

- From the fact there is a doctor present we can assume it is likely a medical issue for which they are receiving some kind of treatment or palliative care. There is a sense of familiarity and foreknowledge which suggests this probably 'is not the first rodeo' for the MC.

- By the line about 'he holds out his arms; I'm supposed to study him. But I already knew he was scrawny' we can infer there is some degree of tension of even contempt between the patient and their doctor.

- Because of the above we automatically derive a sense of the MC being institutionalized and possibly against their will. While perhaps this has been made clear already in terms of plot, this also affects our perception of them as a character. Whether we pretend otherwise or not, the fact the character is institutionalized means we will automatically see them as vulnerable and perhaps therefore unreliable as a narrator. We are also preconditioned by society to be mistrustful of those who are confined in institutions and generally associate them with emotional instability. This is obviously not right, but it is an unfortunate reality as a result of mental health policy. 

- The emotional volatility of the MC is further extrapolated by the real acid test which is the dialogue. The rather short, curt speech patterns again reinforce the dislike between the MC and the doctor. The MC's reaction to the doctor's offer of help ("Why would I? Do you need any help?") suggests a degree of immaturity and that they may be either younger and naturally that way or perhaps it is because of some resentment concerning the circumstances of confinement. The closing line with the emphasis on HATE is typical of the contrarian attitudes of a teenager, which while not confirming they are a teenager certainly suggests its likely or that the character otherwise is immature.

I offer this not as a critique of your work but as an example of the power of dialogue and behavior as exposition. What I think is really magical about this sort of thing is that it does not actually rely on the reader being consciously aware of any of it. 

While there may be disagreement about some of the conclusions I have drawn based on the info (and for all I know they could turn out to be entirely wrong in the story itself since I have not read it) the chief idea is that the reader actually needs relatively little information from the reader in order to get a sense of a character. 

This is of course provided that information is consistent throughout (if the patient's leg was not mentioned again for the rest of the book I would find that a problem, or if they began to speak with Dr. Tomens in an entirely different way) and compatible with the storyline.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Mar 25, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Jack, I think you missed the point of this entire thread.  This is not a critique of my work, but a place for us to each discuss the nuts & bolts of how we each introduce and illustrate our characters. The idea is that by seeing the mechanics of how other writers develop characters, we may each learn something new.  How do you create your characters? Do you have a formal introduction or build it into the action? Do you try to do the work up-front or pepper the text with clues?  I wasn't being a smart-ass when I invited you to share your process in an earlier thread; I actually am interested in knowing how you build your characters.
> 
> _Ordinary people learn from their own mistakes, but the wise man learns from the mistakes of others_.



I got the point of the thread. The critique was a bonus.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Mar 25, 2018)

Tettsuo said:


> Funny, I just wrote a blog piece specifically about this.
> 
> https://www.harulestokeswrites.com/single-post/2018/03/18/My-Top-4-Methods-of-Character-Development





Interesting blog on outlining characters.  But how do you actually implement them in your story?  Do you use a classic intro followed by small segways to further explain their background, or the minimalist method of giving only dribs & drabs of info, or do you do it like John Grisham and take 3 pages to really bring out your characters?  



PS: I don't know if you realize it, but you have a typo in the first line of that blog.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Mar 25, 2018)

Here is another character intro for something I am currently working on.  It is about Maria, a MC in the story, and the chapter is titled Maria (which is why it focuses on her)
After this section the interview continues, and I use more brush strokes to continually illustrate Maria and how she feels about her redneck family.
This is a very straight-forward character intro, similar to how Clancy used to introduce his characters.
______________________________________________________________________________


*Day -369
Interview: Maria Berdan [Sister to Alex Trujillo]
Re: SuperBunkers TV Show on the HomeSpun Network
*
Maria Berdan was an attractive woman, no more than 40, but with the refined look of a lady.  Instinctively keeping her chin up, she still remembered the lessons she had learned in her pageant days.  Even under pressure, the former beauty queen exuded grace.  Giving a polite smile, she acknowledged the interviewer who spoke to her from off camera.

“So you understand that this is an interview for the TV show Super Bunkers, and we’re really just wanting to hear the whole story from a different perspective…” The man’s voice trailed off.


----------



## Bayview (Mar 25, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Interesting blog on outlining characters.  But how do you actually implement them in your story?  Do you use a classic intro followed by small segways to further explain their background, or the minimalist method of giving only dribs & drabs of info, or do you do it like John Grisham and take 3 pages to really bring out your characters?



You're using this word a lot, so can I clarify... when you say "segway", do you mean segue? Assuming yes... a segue is a sort of seamless transition. I think it might be more clear if you explained what you're segueing TO? Like, you've got action or whatever, and then you segue to... description, I'm guessing, but maybe backstory or something, or...?


----------



## Bayview (Mar 25, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Here is another character intro for something I am currently working on.  It is about Maria, a MC in the story, and the chapter is titled Maria (which is why it focuses on her)
> After this section the interview continues, and I use more brush strokes to continually illustrate Maria and how she feels about her redneck family.
> This is a very straight-forward character intro, similar to how Clancy used to introduce his characters.
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> ...



I don't really get the headings with this... Is the text meant to be a transcript, or written from the perspective of someone watching the interview? I mean, it seems like pure omniscient voice, but I'm not sure how that fits in with what the format seems to be suggesting.

As we're doing excerpts... I usually write in a closer POV, and this is the opening of my current WIP (just written yesterday, so not at all polished):

Ethan was drunk. That’s why he had the nerve to stare the way he was. Still not brave enough to get off his ass and go over to the bar and start an actual conversation, but the staring was a good first step, wasn’t it?

It had worked before. He might not be the best looking guy in the room—well, hell, as long as that bartender was in the vicinity, Ethan was _definitely _not the best looking guy—but he knew he had a certain appeal. Lean body, high cheekbones, big, dark eyes, hair he kept deliberately shaggy and mussed-looking. That was a good look, and it generally worked for him. So if he just kept staring long enough, the bartender would notice, and he’d smile, and then everything would fall into place from there.

Except the damn bartender didn’t so much as glance in his general direction.​
There's more direct physical description than I'd usually give, but since the whole scene is about trying to pick up, the physical description seemed warranted. But in terms of the rest of the characterization, it mostly comes through thoughts/actions/reactions. When you're writing close POV, you can't really zoom out and give the overview-style characterization like in Ralph's example.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Mar 25, 2018)

Ahhhh, so that's how it's spelled. 

Yeah, segues are really what was being talked about in the clock-stopping thread.  A lotta writers use segues as a way to illustrate their characters as they go (or to help tell the back story.)  One minute you are detailing some kind of action or current scene, the next is a segue where we see the hero as a child, or when they lost their lover to the one-armed man, etc.  The writer deviates long enough to tell this sidebar story, then transitions back into the action scene.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Mar 25, 2018)

Bayview said:


> Ethan was drunk. That’s why he had the nerve to stare the way he was. Still not brave enough to get off his ass and go over to the bar and start an actual conversation, but the staring was a good first step, wasn’t it?
> 
> It had worked before. He might not be the best looking guy in the room—well, hell, as long as that bartender was in the vicinity, Ethan was _definitely _not the best looking guy—but he knew he had a certain appeal. Lean body, high cheekbones, big, dark eyes, hair he kept deliberately shaggy and mussed-looking. That was a good look, and it generally worked for him. So if he just kept staring long enough, the bartender would notice, and he’d smile, and then everything would fall into place from there.
> 
> Except the damn bartender didn’t so much as glance in his general direction.​




Actually I thought the physical description was totally warranted because it tells you how Ethan thinks of himself.  I especially liked how in the first paragraph you infected the narrator's voice with Ethan's thinking. It is an elegant way to get into the character's head without doing the whole _thoughts-in-italics_ thing.  

How do you follow up the intro? Brush strokes, segues...?


----------



## Bayview (Mar 25, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Actually I thought the physical description was totally warranted because it tells you how Ethan thinks of himself.  I especially liked how in the first paragraph you infected the narrator's voice with Ethan's thinking. It is an elegant way to get into the character's head without doing the whole _thoughts-in-italics_ thing.
> 
> How do you follow up the intro? Brush strokes, segues...?



I don't really use any of those terms in my thinking. I just... tell the story? I guess there are little segues, as you're calling them, into background information as I introduce the other two characters in the scene... but I think most of the characterization comes from dialogue:

“Maybe he’s straight,” Cora suggested. She was sitting on the same side of the table as Ethan and she had just as good a view of the bar as he did. Just as good a view of the oblivious bartender. So she should know better than to make a suggestion like that.

“He’s been flirting with guys all night long,” Ethan groaned. “Every guy but me.”

“Maybe he’s gay, but not psychic?” Josh suggested. He and Ethan had been friends when they were kids in Toronto, and they’d gotten even closer when they’d moved to Montreal together for university. Apparently that meant Josh didn’t have to bother with being polite. “Pull yourself together. Go order a drink and flash him the puppy-dog eyes from up close. Do a little flirting yourself. Fucking _make it happen,_ Ethan. This is the third night in a row I’ve wasted in a goddamn gay bar and it’s getting depressing. I can’t be your wingman when you refuse to fucking fly!”​


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Mar 25, 2018)

Bayview said:


> I don't really use any of those terms in my thinking. I just... tell the story? I guess there are little segues, as you're calling them, into background information as I introduce the other two characters in the scene... but I think most of the characterization comes from dialogue:
> “Maybe he’s straight,” Cora suggested. She was sitting on the same side of the table as Ethan and she had just as good a view of the bar as he did. Just as good a view of the oblivious bartender. So she should know better than to make a suggestion like that.
> 
> “He’s been flirting with guys all night long,” Ethan groaned. “Every guy but me.”
> ...



Yep, you segue (a teeny-tiny one) there in that last paragraph.  It works though, and conveys at least 3 critical facts about Josh & Ethan, in a span of 25 words.  That's real economy-of-words; Asimov would be proud.

Everyone has different terms for these writing techniques.  Sometimes I think half the arguments in forums like this one are over different terminology for the same thing.


----------



## Cephus (Mar 26, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Nor do I.  I had to go back 4 books to find that snippet.  Usually my introductions are spread out over a page.
> 
> Yep, introductions can be overdone.  Normally I don't do 'em for 3rd tier characters, but this one helped to tell the story while illuminating the hero, all in 2 short paragraphs.



Exactly.  And a character description might take place over several chapters, with parts added here and there where they make sense in the narrative.  Info dumps are rarely very useful, especially regarding characters.  You should learn about the characters through their actions and experiences.


----------



## Cephus (Mar 26, 2018)

Bayview said:


> You're using this word a lot, so can I clarify... when you say "segway", do you mean segue? Assuming yes... a segue is a sort of seamless transition. I think it might be more clear if you explained what you're segueing TO? Like, you've got action or whatever, and then you segue to... description, I'm guessing, but maybe backstory or something, or...?



Nah, clearly the characters are driving around on small Segways!


----------



## EmmaSohan (Mar 26, 2018)

In my mind, I lose points if my character does something implausible or out of character. I gain points if my character is in character, and then neutral actions are neutral.

Avoiding out-of-character isn't as easy as it looks, because the plot often asks characters to do things they wouldn't do in-character. If the character acts out-of-character and then the author comes up with some on-the-spot explanation, I think that still loses points for me.

Having them be in-character also takes work. I remember writing a scene where my main character was given something to read, and only at that point remembering she couldn't read. If I forgot, it has to be easy for my readers to forget. For my character with a bad leg, I had to constantly be thinking what a person with a bad leg would view the scene, while I am trying to balance everything else. So she's standing in a bank line, waiting to see if the check for $200,000 cashed, and I trying to build suspense on that, and how time goes so slow, and . . . I have to remember that the man in front of her would offer to let her go first, even though that's plot-irrelevant.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Mar 26, 2018)

I apologize if I have been acting strangely the last few days.
Sobriety does that to me.
It won't happen again.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Mar 27, 2018)

Cephus said:


> Exactly.  And a character description might take place over several chapters, with parts added here and there where they make sense in the narrative.  Info dumps are rarely very useful, especially regarding characters.  You should learn about the characters through their actions and experiences.




I really like to illustrate the characters at point of contact because of the ten page rule.
Really it's not a rule.
The deal is that if you don't get the reader hooked on story or characters within the first 10 pages, then they will not buy the book. Sure, folks will buy a Stephen King book sight unseen...but you aint Stephen King.  You're not even Rodney King.
see, with ebooks, people can read the first 30 pages before they have to decide to buy or not.
Agents n publishers usually look at those first 5-10 pages before they reject you.
Your story and characters need to be tight because if they are bored by the first ten pages, they won't read the next 200.
Tis why I stress so much about character development.


----------



## Blackstone (Mar 27, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> I really like to illustrate the characters at point of contact because of the ten page rule.
> Really it's not a rule.
> The deal is that if you don't get the reader hooked on story or characters within the first 10 pages, then they will not buy the book. Sure, folks will buy a Stephen King book sight unseen...but you aint Stephen King.  You're not even Rodney King.
> see, with ebooks, people can read the first 30 pages before they have to decide to buy or not.
> ...



Hi Ralph,

I think the problem is that you're not fully taking into account the different ways in which the writer can introduce a character.

You can illustrate your characters at the first point of contact, of course you can, but the issue is how _much_ illustration should you be doing and what _impact_ is that information going to have on this not-yet-invested reader. If I might propose a rather saucy analogy: There's a reason strippers undress slow - its because most of their punters prefer it that way.

The ten page rule, like most rules, is fair as far as a guideline but it is only valid if you can hold my interest through a continuous thread-the-needle exercise of suspense vs. payoff. In my experience most agents and certainly publishers, if they are being completely honest, have more like a one page rule for this stuff. Perhaps even a one paragraph rule!

 In other words, you have to offer a payoff for my interest from pretty much the start. Of the authors I know who are decent writers but still not quite 'there yet' in terms of publishing interest I feel a common issue is pacing. This applies to plot, but can also apply to characters.

I do know that my first acceptance (after many rejections) came for a book that began very much _in media res _and contained very little explicit information on its characters backstories, personalities or even appearances within the first chapter. It simply had the names and a couple of relatively superficial details that was intended to work with the reader's assumptions (and to a degree their prejudices) to impress information. 

For instance I could write a paragraph about Ted introducing his character and background, however if I simply write something like *"Ted sat on the edge of the waiting room chair running his hand through lank strands of hair greased with last night's mousse. Unusually he found himself crossing his legs and pressing them together as might an old lady who needed the bathroom, as his eyes tracked the plain office clock chugging overhead. One by one, he began to chew his nails*" I think that presents a pretty developed idea about the _kind of person _Ted is (or at least the kind he isn't) even if it does not actually tell you, you know? 

9 times out of 10 if I open a book and start reading and have to immediately work my way through five or six pages of "He wore a green coat covered in magic marker, owned a gray cat called Murphy and lived in a house on Knob Hill with a mother who ate mattresses" as interesting as you can make it (and I'm sure you can) without it being joined at the hip to narrative it more often than not does not work.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Mar 28, 2018)

Skip details that aren't related to the story.

Write the story. Details can be added during editing. I find that works best. That way the details I add are relevant.

Is it harder that way? Yes and no. It's easier to pick details that are meaningful. It can be a tad difficult to insert details when you already like the flow of the story. (Shrug) But being able to edit like that is important, because sometimes things aren't perfect the first time around. Most members who have ended up with book contracts talk about having to make edits. (They usually stop posting after that, for some reason.)


----------



## Bayview (Mar 28, 2018)

I think any time we're talking about things that happen near the start of the book (although I'd argue that character development happens all through the book, as you show readers new facets), it makes sense to take advantage of the Amazon Look Inside feature. It's a free and easy way to see what others are doing!

I've used up my free NYT access for the month, so I can't use their bestseller list as a reference point, but based on the Amazon bestsellers at https://www.amazon.com/charts/2018-03-25/mostsold/fiction/, and skipping the bunny book...

_Say You're Sorry_ - it starts with a bit of backstory about Tessa having been afraid of the dark for her whole life, but it's limited, relevant backstory that, for me, adds to the creepiness. And then there's lots of "stopping the scene clock" from the other thread, but I don't feel a loss of suspense. We need the background information in order to care about the character involved in all the action. Reading on, we see that this isn't the main character... the main character, I assume, is the one we meet in Chapter 3. And in Chapter 3, I'm seeing the characterization coming pretty heavy in the first few pages (nothing is really happening) but it's done kind of indirectly, if that makes sense? We learn about this character by seeing her mental struggles. There's a chunk of backstory starting with "This was ridiculous" but it's blending in as the character giving herself a scolding - kind of the internal equivalent of learning about a character through dialogue. There's obviously more detail than there would be if this was _really_ her thoughts, but to me it feels more natural than a "as you know, Bob" in actual dialogue. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01M7XPGYE/?tag=writingforu06-20

_Ready Player One_ - blech. I hated this book, largely because I couldn't stand all the info dumps. Honestly, I can't bring myself to wade through this again, not even in the interests of literary scholarship. Anyone else willing to give it a go and see how characterization is handled? https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004J4WKUQ/?tag=writingforu06-20
_
The Great Alone - _Lots of characterization right on the first page, but it's all tied in to the scene - Leni's worried about being late to school, so we get a bit of backstory about her school experiences. Her parents are fighting, so we hear a bit about her parents. And then we get a sort of characterization-via-empathy stretch - we don't need to be TOLD it's lonely when you're walking to and from school yourself, don't need to be TOLD it sucks when other people seem to have more money than you. We're just shown the scenarios and we can imagine how the character feels about it all. I like this approach. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06Y5WRS2C/?tag=writingforu06-20

_Little Fires Everywhere_ - damn, this one hooked me. Good characterization technique, too, I'd say - burn the family house down and then reveal each character's personality via the reaction to the fire. And then the next chapter is mostly characterization, too - I still don't know who the main character is going to be, or even if there is one, but we learn a lot about the town (not so much about Mia and Pearl themselves) and a LOT about Mrs. Richardson. It feels like everything links together - we learn about the town via talking about Mia and Pearl's reaction to it, and we learn about Mrs. Richardson by tracking the history of a house she owns and seeing how it's contributed to her life at different stages. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01N4VW75U/?tag=writingforu06-20

Overall, I think that's what's struck me most clearly - the characterization in these books (minus _Ready Player One_, possibly) doesn't exist in a vacuum. There's a context for everything, a reason why the information is presented in the way it is at the time it is. I think that may be missing from some of the characterization I've read in unpublished writing. I don't want to read that a man is six-feet-tall unless there's a story-related reason for his height to be relevant. I don't want to read someone's family history unless that family history ties in to the story being told.

Anyone else pick up anything of use?


----------



## SueC (Mar 28, 2018)

I do try to have a "back story" for a main character, especially. Like Jack said, it is a useful tool to predict or anticipate behavior. You give them a history that may or may not appear in the story, and that is where I struggle the most. How much of a character's back story needs to be in the tale I am trying to tell? Even if an MC is based on a person I know well, I still have to be sure I understand their rationale for choices. If its a minor character, their motivations may not be necessary to make the story a good one, or their part in it interesting. I do think character development is crucial to good story telling. I think readers have to be able to relate on some level, even an obvious one (we are all human, we make mistakes, etc.) before they become engaged.


----------



## Cephus (Mar 28, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> I really like to illustrate the characters at point of contact because of the ten page rule.
> Really it's not a rule.
> The deal is that if you don't get the reader hooked on story or characters within the first 10 pages, then they will not buy the book. Sure, folks will buy a Stephen King book sight unseen...but you aint Stephen King.  You're not even Rodney King.
> see, with ebooks, people can read the first 30 pages before they have to decide to buy or not.
> ...



All you have to do is have an interesting 10 pages, you don't have to sit down and tell the reader the whole life story of the characters in the first 10 pages, in fact, that's pretty boring to do.  Give the backstory that needs to be given, fill in more as time goes on.  Tell the reader what they need to know.  No more, no less. Otherwise it gets bogged down in exposition and nobody will want to read it.


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Mar 28, 2018)

> Maria Berdan was an attractive woman, no more than 40, but with the  refined look of a lady.  Instinctively keeping her chin up, she still  remembered the lessons she had learned in her pageant days.  Even under  pressure, the former beauty queen exuded grace.  Giving a polite smile,  she acknowledged the interviewer who spoke to her from off camera.


In general, were this to be the opening paragraph of a submission, here is where the rejection slip comes out, be it an agent or a publisher's first reader. And, it makes sense that it does.

In verbal storytelling we're alone on the stage, and so must set the scene as is done here. So such a description, spoken in a voice filled with emotion, while the storyteller uses gesture, expression, and body language to illustrate how _they_ feel about her, is expected, because they're alone on  stage. But the  narrator's voice on the page _has no emotion_. It's someone we know nothing about, giving us data for unknown purpose. Does knowing she's an attractive woman tell us anything useful, given that we cannot see her, and don't know where she is, or her expecations for the immediate future? Does where she learned to keep her chin up matter at this point, when we don't yet know what she's doing or why? 

A line that let us know that she faced the camera, careful to keep her chin up to hide the double chin that the years were threatening her with, would place the reader before a camera, tell us she's no longer young, and that she's sensitive about maintaining a youthful look. So, with no narrator on stage we would be placed in space, and have had character development, all without the author having to step on stage. Given that the narrator isn't in the story, and lives at a time aqnd place different from the protagonist, how can they appear on stage together? How can the scene seem real to a reader if everyone in the story politely shuts up when you choose to talk about them. How can she seem real if she doesn't turn to you and ask who the hell you are, and why you're talking about her?

Simply put: Character is demonstrated, not talked about. Story happens, it's not talked about. And your reader is seeking to be entertained, not told the details of a fictional character's day.

Good writing is  supposed to evoke sensation in the reader - not the fact that it is  raining, but the feeling of being rained upon.  E. L. Doctorow
 Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/e_l_doctorow_390202
Good writing is  supposed to evoke sensation in the reader - not the fact that it is  raining, but the feeling of being rained upon.  E. L. Doctorow
 Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/e_l_doctorow_390202


Good writing is supposed to evoke sensation in the reader—not the fact that it's raining, but the feeling of being rained upon.

~ E. L. Doctorow
Good writing is  supposed to evoke sensation in the reader - not the fact that it is  raining, but the feeling of being rained upon.
 Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/e_l_doctorow_390202

Good writing is  supposed to evoke sensation in the reader - not the fact that it is  raining, but the feeling of being rained upon.  E. L. Doctorow
 Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/e_l_doctorow_390202


----------



## Bayview (Mar 28, 2018)

Jay Greenstein said:


> Simply put: Character is demonstrated, not talked about. Story happens, it's not talked about. And your reader is seeking to be entertained, not told the details of a fictional character's day.


Mr. Bennet was so odd a mixture of quick parts, sarcastic humour, reserve, and caprice, that the experience of three and twenty years had been insufficient to make his wife understand his character. _Her_ mind was less difficult to develop. She was a woman of mean understanding, little information, and uncertain temper. When she was discontented she fancied herself nervous. The business of her life was to get her daughters married; it’s solace was visiting and news.

--​ She had been looking all round her again—at the lawn, the great trees, the reedy, silvery Thames, the beautiful old house; and while engaged in this survey she had made room in it for her companions; a comprehensiveness of observation easily conceivable on the part of a young woman who was evidently both intelligent and excited. She had seated herself and had put away the little dog; her white hands, in her lap, were folded upon her black dress; her head was erect, her eye lighted, her flexible figure turned itself easily this way and that, in sympathy with the alertness with which she evidently caught impressions. Her impressions were numerous, and they were all reflected in a clear, still smile.

--​ Sir Leicester Dedlock is only a baronet, but there is no mightier
baronet than he. His family is as old as the hills, and infinitely
more respectable. He has a general opinion that the world might get
on without hills but would be done up without Dedlocks. He would on
the whole admit nature to be a good idea (a little low, perhaps, when
not enclosed with a park-fence), but an idea dependent for its
execution on your great county families. He is a gentleman of strict
conscience, disdainful of all littleness and meanness and ready on
the shortest notice to die any death you may please to mention rather
than give occasion for the least impeachment of his integrity. He is
an honourable, obstinate, truthful, high-spirited, intensely
prejudiced, perfectly unreasonable man. [and on and on]​
Austen, James, and Dickens.

If you want to say you don't care for direct description, fair enough. If you want to say it's not currently popular, there's certainly an argument to be made. But to claim that it can't be good writing, or that it's never done? Tell it to Austen, James, Dickens, and countless other beloved and entertaining writers.


----------



## Cephus (Mar 28, 2018)

Bayview said:


> If you want to say you don't care for direct description, fair enough. If you want to say it's not currently popular, there's certainly an argument to be made. But to claim that it can't be good writing, or that it's never done? Tell it to Austen, James, Dickens, and countless other beloved and entertaining writers.



But none of those writers would get anywhere today, writing like that.  They only get any attention because they are "classics".


----------



## Bayview (Mar 28, 2018)

Cephus said:


> But none of those writers would get anywhere today, writing like that.  They only get any attention because they are "classics".



That's the "there's certainly an argument to be made" option. But if Jay's quoting Doctorow to suggest that direct characterization isn't "good" writing, that's a more absolute statement, and I think Austen, James, and Dickens are pretty compelling refutation.


ETA: In terms of making the argument that none of those writers would get anywhere today, presumably because they use direct characterization and/or omniscient narration: the following are all best-sellers, award-winners, published in the last decade, and just books that I happened to have on my Kobo when I started thinking about this. (And I delete books from my Kobo pretty regularly... this is three out of about twelve books).

Hoonie was born with a cleft palate and a twisted foot; he was, however, endowed with hefty shoulders, a squat build, and a golden complexion. Even as a young man, he retained the mild, thoughtful temperament he’d had as a child. When Hoonie covered his misshapen mouth with his hands, something he did out of habit meeting strangers, he resembled his nice-looking father, both having the same large, smiling eyes. Inky eyebrows graced his broad forehead, perpetually tanned from outdoor work. Like his parents, Hoonie was not a nimble talker, and some made the mistake of thinking that because he could not speak quickly there was something wrong with his mind, but that was not true. – _Pachniko_ by Min Jin Lee, 2017​ 
--
When he arrived in Dodge City in 1878, Dr. John Henry Holliday was a frail twenty-six-year-old dentist who wanted nothing grander than to practice his profession in a prosperous Kansas cow town. Hope—cruelest of the evils that escaped Pandora’s box—smiled on him gently all that summer. While he lived in Dodge, the quiet life he learned for seemed to lie within his grasp. (and most of the rest of the first chapter is in a similar vein) – _Doc_, by Mary Doria Russell, 2011​ 
--
Year after year they have heard the boy’s body grow—the banging becoming harder and harder, faster and faster. He’s seventeen now, and the town hasn’t seen a player with anything close to his talent since the team was in the top division, before he was born. He’s got the build, the hands, the head, and the heart. But above all he’s got the vision: what he sees on the ice seems to happen more slowly than what everyone else sees. You can teach a lot about hockey, but not that. You’re either born with that way of seeing or you aren’t. – _Beartown_, Fredrik Backman, 2017​


----------



## bdcharles (Mar 28, 2018)

Bayview said:


> If you want to say you don't care for direct description, fair enough. If you want to say it's not currently popular, there's certainly an argument to be made. But to claim that it can't be good writing, or that it's never done? Tell it to Austen, James, Dickens, and countless other beloved and entertaining writers.



The difference, to me, is that the initial example is needing voice. It's not a character thinking it, or perceiving her. 75% of the sentences are fronted adverbials. Does anyone think in that way? One wouldn't be so bad, but three in such quick succession? By contrast, the other examples have personality and variety, putting us in the head of a dynamic narrating character. I personally would struggle to compare the sample to Jane Austen and Charles Dickens and James Joyce. Of course I'd struggle to compare my own writing to the same, so I generally don't.


----------



## Bayview (Mar 28, 2018)

bdcharles said:


> The difference, to me, is that the initial example is needing voice. It's not a character thinking it, or perceiving her. 75% of the sentences are fronted adverbials. Does anyone think in that way? One wouldn't be so bad, but three in such quick succession? By contrast, the other examples have personality and variety, putting us in the head of a dynamic narrating character. I personally would struggle to compare the sample to Jane Austen and Charles Dickens and James Joyce. Of course I'd struggle to compare my own writing to the same, so I generally don't.



Yeah, I think Jane Austen and Henry James and Charles Dickens are fairly lofty competition! But I think they're pretty solid examples of what we could strive for.

I agree that omniscient narration works best when the narrative voice is witty and compelling and deep. But Jay wasn't saying the excerpt didn't work because the omniscient narrator wasn't compelling enough: he was saying the excerpt didn't work because it's in omniscient.

I know, he doesn't use the word omniscient, but he says: "Given that the narrator isn't in the story, and lives at a time aqnd place different from the protagonist, how can they appear on stage together? How can the scene seem real to a reader if everyone in the story politely shuts up when you choose to talk about them. How can she seem real if she doesn't turn to you and ask who the hell you are, and why you're talking about her?" 

"A narrator that isn't in the story and lives at a time and place different from the protagonist" is a pretty clear definition of an omniscient narrator. And contrary to Jay's post, omniscient narrators are a completely accepted and successful literary tool. They're more common in the classics, yes, but they're still being used lots today.

If someone wants to critique the excerpt because they didn't find it compelling, or because the narrative voice didn't have enough personality, I think that's totally fair, because it's a critique of an individual piece of work. But trying to make things broader than that doesn't work. Whether the omniscient narration worked in this excerpt or not, it has undoubtedly worked really well for a whole lot of authors over the centuries.


----------



## bdcharles (Mar 29, 2018)

Bayview said:


> Yeah, I think Jane Austen and Henry James and Charles Dickens are fairly lofty competition! But I think they're pretty solid examples of what we could strive for.
> 
> I agree that omniscient narration works best when the narrative voice is witty and compelling and deep. But Jay wasn't saying the excerpt didn't work because the omniscient narrator wasn't compelling enough: he was saying the excerpt didn't work because it's in omniscient.
> 
> ...



Henry James, whoops!  

Yes, I think this is the challenge with an omniscient narrator - namely that it is easy to lapse into flat description. But in many 3rd person omni novels, the narrator, though disembodied, has a personality and a voice as well as 3rd party insights to which a single individual wouldn't, such as knowing another's feelings. Eg: _Middlemarch _by George Eliot (sample from nownovel.com):



> “Shall you wear them in company?” said Celia, who was watching her with real curiosity as to what she would do.
> 
> Dorothea glanced quickly at her sister. […] “Perhaps,” she said, rather haughtily. “I cannot tell to what level I may sink.”
> 
> Celia blushed, and was unhappy: she saw  that she had offended her sister, and dared not say even anything pretty  about the gift of the ornaments which she put back into the box and  carried away. Dorothea too was unhappy […] questioning the purity of her  own feeling and speech in the scene which had ended with that little  explosion.



The narrator informs us of the mindset of each charater, but it is done so in a very style- and context- sensitive way. We could easily believe that the narrator is a chronicler, present at events though not necessarily partaking in them.


----------



## Bayview (Mar 29, 2018)

bdcharles said:


> Henry James, whoops!
> 
> Yes, I think this is the challenge with an omniscient narrator - namely that it is easy to lapse into flat description. But in many 3rd person omni novels, the narrator, though disembodied, has a personality and a voice as well as 3rd party insights to which a single individual wouldn't, such as knowing another's feelings. Eg: _Middlemarch _by George Eliot (sample from nownovel.com):
> 
> ...



I agree - omniscient works best for me when it has some personality and pizzazz. But we're possibly wandering a bit away from the main topic of the thread?


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Mar 29, 2018)

Bayview said:


> I agree - omniscient works best for me when it has some personality and pizzazz. But we're possibly wandering a bit away from the main topic of the thread?



Not really, we are just realizing that character development can be done in a variety of ways and perspectives.  How you illustrate an actor from first person perspective, versus 3rd person formal, or 3rd informal, can vary from writer to writer.  It seems like a good thing to fight about.

BTW Bayview, all time greatest post on page 5:
"Overall, I think that's what's struck me most clearly - the characterization in these books (minus _Ready Player One, possibly) doesn't exist in a vacuum. There's a context for everything, a reason why the information is presented in the way it is at the time it is. I think that may be missing from some of the characterization I've read in unpublished writing. I don't want to read that a man is six-feet-tall unless there's a story-related reason for his height to be relevant. I don't want to read someone's family history unless that family history ties in to the story being told."_


----------



## Tettsuo (Mar 29, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Interesting blog on outlining characters.  But how do you actually implement them in your story?  Do you use a classic intro followed by small segways to further explain their background, or the minimalist method of giving only dribs & drabs of info, or do you do it like John Grisham and take 3 pages to really bring out your characters?


I think it greatly depends on the perspective being used.  If 1st - present, you have to provide detail in a way that makes sense to the reader if the main character is thinking or talking in real time.  When I use that perspective, I usually do it in pieces if the character is known to the main character and in a splash if the mc is first meeting a new character.  For 3rd - past, you have much more leeway in how you present a character.  Using this perspective, I tend to do it in a splash as soon as the character is introduced.  But, even when I create the intro with a splash, if something specific and hidden (from the reader) appears, I'll do a second splash of description that ties into the initial one.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Mar 30, 2018)

Tettsuo said:


> I think it greatly depends on the perspective being used.  If 1st - present, you have to provide detail in a way that makes sense to the reader if the main character is thinking or talking in real time.  When I use that perspective, I usually do it in pieces if the character is known to the main character and in a splash if the mc is first meeting a new character.  For 3rd - past, you have much more leeway in how you present a character.  Using this perspective, I tend to do it in a splash as soon as the character is introduced.  But, even when I create the intro with a splash, if something specific and hidden (from the reader) appears, I'll do a second splash of description that ties into the initial one.




So it sounds like you have action, with segues along the way, each segue paints the character a bit at a time. Like little scene-cuts in a video game.


----------

