# Character development: the nuts & bolts of it



## Ralph Rotten (Aug 6, 2018)

It's been a while since we had a thread on *CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT,* and since we have picked up a few new members recently, I thought it was a good time to start a new thread on the topic.
But to do this right, we need to hear from some of the accomplished writers in our little forum.


*NOTE:* The concepts I talk about here are my personal opinion and writing style. I am not asserting that they are the ONLY way to develop characters.  Nor am I claiming to be some writing guru: I am better 'n some, and worse than others.  I am posting this thread in the hopes that I can help some of the newer writers avoid the pitfalls that I ran into in my ignorance as a new writer.  





Back in the day I used to get a lotta rejections because even though I wrote a good story, I had zero character development.  My problem was that I didn't even understand what character development was.
I thought character development was spending a whole page describing a person from top to bottom, or awkwardly telling their whole back story like a noob.  It took me a few years (and a lot of rejections) to finally understand what the #@$ I was doing. 

So let's start with the mechanics of character development.  

*Step 1) The introduction!*
Okay, there are lots of threads in this forum where writers are asking "How much detail do I add to an intro?" 
Answer: You only add those details that speak to the nature of the character.

Everybody wears pants, so nobody cares if your character has brown pants, or blue jeans, unless that speaks directly to the character's personality.
Example: Blue jeans.  So what? Everybody wears blue jeans.
But if your character wears blue jeans in an office where everybody else is wearing suits...then that is something to mention because it tells us that this guy/gal is either very casual, or is trying to convey an image of being a very informal/ordinary guy.  Have you ever met one of those guys who wears a formal blazer with blue jeans?  Although it is sheer posery, it speaks directly to their personality.

For me, a character intro is anything from a paragraph, to a page or 2 in length.  With longer intros I am usually trying to paint the scene at the same time. Often this is done *through the eyes of the character because how they view their world helps to paint both the character as well as the scene*.  example: If the world around them is a shithole, but they don't really notice...then that speaks to the character's personality.  But if they cringe at the sight of a cockroach, then that *also* speaks to their personality.

Here is a short intro I did recently.  
---------------------------​
Randy had been a fuck-up his entire life.  There was just no way to sugar coat it.  Only in his mid-fifties, he had been through more than a dozen professions during his working years.  He had once sat down with pen & paper and tried to count how many jobs he’d had in his lifetime; the final tally had been just shy of thirty.  Even worse yet; he’d had six jobs since then.  

Randy’s saving grace, his singular ability that enabled him to continue to find new jobs from which to be fired from, was his affability.  In short, Randy Holt was a fun guy to be around.  He always had a funny joke or entertaining story to tell.  Then there was his smile; like a Jack-O-Lantern with a few loose screws.  While he made a lousy employee, Randy sure as hell knew how to make a first impression.  

Even here in a disaster zone he stood out.  Within hours of the impact he had already damaged Tim Senior’s motor home, shattered a whole case of expensive wine, and almost run people over with the bulldozer.  Just as in his former life, Randy found himself bounced from job to job around the bunker.  It had seemed like the cycle would continue for the rest of the portly man’s life, until the fateful day he met Bingo.

------------------------------​
Okay, notice how I didn't clog it up by mentioning a buncha physical descriptions?  Don't feel like you have to spend a page describing the physical appearance of a character.
Special note: Don't feel like you have to mention EVERY SINGLE DETAIL ABOUT A CHARACTER IN THEIR INTRO.  Adding those little details is what BRUSH STROKES are for.  
Brush strokes are subtle details, just an adjective here & there that help to fully paint the character or the scene around them.
Here is an example:

-----------------------------​*example 1, no brush strokes:*

"What do you mean we're stuck here?" John asked as he looked at the map.
"Just that," Debra rolled her eyes.  "We are stuck here for all eternity."
"No way, there has got to be a way to get out of this...thing...right?" Scratching his head, John seemed convinced that there must be a way to escape.
"It's called an _oubliette_, which is fancy-French for a hole where you put people to be forgotten and die."  Reclining in her seat, Debra did her best to explain their predicament.

(Note: this is also a good example of what editors are talking about when they say your dialog has too much white space in it.)

*Example 2: Same dialog, but with brush strokes:*

"What do you mean we're stuck here?" John asked as he tapped the map with a *hairy knuckle.*
"Just that," Debra rolled her eyes as she adjusted her *considerable girth* to fit the chair.  "We are stuck here for all eternity."
"No way, there has got to be a way to get out of this...thing...right?" Scratching the side of his *shaved head*, John seemed convinced that there must be a way to escape.
"It's called an _oubliette_, which is fancy-French for a hole where you put people to be forgotten and die."  Reclining in her seat, Debra clasped her *thick hands* together before rendering a flat smile.

4 lines, and we know that John is prolly a guy with a lot of body hair, but shaves his head. Debra is heavy, and has apparently been in the oubliette for some time.
Don't try to tell the whole story all at once: tell it in bits and pieces.
Also, try to avoid using more than one adjective per sentence.  Sure, sometimes you can use 2, but the mark of a noob is having 3 or 4 adjectives in a single sentence.







Okay, this is the part where the other experienced writers talk about how THEY develop their characters.  I'm talking about you BV, Mod, Pip, Phil, Lucky...


----------



## ironpony (Aug 6, 2018)

This is a very good read, thanks!

I was told before by a couple of people that I tend to throw the main character under the opening crisis too soon, without introducing him/her enough.  Do you think that after introducing the character, that it's okay to open with the crisis right in the first opening scene, as a hook for the readers?

Or do you think you need a few scenes to develop the character first before introducing the crisis that gets the plot rolling?  I've seen it done both ways, where some stories will open right with the crisis and introduce the main character in it.  But how do you do that, without the reader thinking they could have used more of a character introduction beforehand?


----------



## moderan (Aug 7, 2018)

DeMille said to start with an earthquake and work your way up, or something to that effect. Open with the crisis if you want -- just have an arc of development for the character to follow.
I like to characterize through gesture. Body language is important irl to reveal character. That doesn't mean overdramatizing, he says, thrusting his knuckles into his mouth, but to have a characteristic set of responses, he says, rolling his eyes and using quick jabs with his cigarette to make the point.
This can get especially interesting when your lead has tentacles or extra eyes.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Aug 7, 2018)

ironpony said:


> This is a very good read, thanks!
> 
> I was told before by a couple of people that I tend to throw the main character under the opening crisis too soon, without introducing him/her enough.  Do you think that after introducing the character, that it's okay to open with the crisis right in the first opening scene, as a hook for the readers?
> 
> Or do you think you need a few scenes to develop the character first before introducing the crisis that gets the plot rolling?  I've seen it done both ways, where some stories will open right with the crisis and introduce the main character in it.  But how do you do that, without the reader thinking they could have used more of a character introduction beforehand?



When doing screenplays, one has to consider time constraints. Is there time to show the MC in normal life before the crisis occurs. Sometimes yes and sometimes no.

Remember : you can't please all of the people all of the time. Personally, I would say you can't please all of the people, period. Some just look for something to criticize, and if they can't find it, they make something up.

Look at what's successful. Look at what you, personally, like. Study those things. How much character introduction takes place before the crisis? Start trusting yourself a bit more.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Aug 7, 2018)

Important things need to be told as early as possible.

A character's ethnic background should be mentioned early, instead of jarring the reader with the info 3/4 of the way through the book. Now I'm not saying that ethnic background is always needed. But if you're going to have it mentioned, sooner is better than later.

I tend to go light on character descriptions. I like leaving most characters up to the reader to imagine as they see fit. It's the personalities that I spend time and words defining.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 7, 2018)

This is a big topic and (as noted) does not have any sort of one-size-fits-all approach. Certain books call for different relationships between writer-reader-character and different degrees of intimacy. 

Many writers, especially ones starting out, design their characters as pawns to move around a chessboard consisting of some monumental event - a journey into space, a bloody war, a natural disaster, etc. This is an approach that is very much ingrained. Most of us would rather write about a nation staring down the barrel of a pending apocalypse than, for example, a person who is running late for a job they desperately need and who suddenly finds themselves trapped in an elevator. In reality we know these two situations, in terms of character emotions, would probably be rather similar, yet most of us value the bigger, more complicated, more visually intoxicating, more outlandish situation over the smaller one. We then wonder why coming up with characters gets so damn complicated. It gets complicated because we are trying to write characters to fit plots NOT the other way around. When we do this the whole idea of character development often becomes something of an afterthought. A good way to develop characters, then, is to work on the general assumption that smaller, more individualized conflicts, victories and losses will be easier to write well and therefore easier to weaponize. It is much easier for most writers to write about a character who is watching _their _world rather than one watching the _actual _world ending.  

The beginning of this post is phrased: "Back in the day I used to get a lotta rejections because even though I wrote a good story, I had zero character development..." This bothers me a little bit because it implies that the story in question was good even though it had "zero character development". I do know what Ralph is saying - that by "story" he means he had a good series of events and probably some strong themes and a poignant message but that the reader(s) had difficulty staying interested due to a weaker human component - however the phrasing does (inadvertently) suggest some sort of separation that does not actually exist and I would like to make that clear: A story without serviceable characters is soup without water. 

Most readers do not read books for plot. They read them for insights into the mental state of a character they would not otherwise be able to access. We know this because people still read books in spite of an ever-increasing influx of excellent television and film, most of which are much better equipped to portray _action._ The one thing (the only thing?) that books have which movies and TV never can overcome is the ability to examine in detail a character's sense of self and inner struggle. Part of this is probably to do with having actors. Part of it is certainly length. Part of it is the novel's ability to utilize varying points of view where films are almost always told in "third person omniscient". Whatever it is, we can safely say character exploration is the one thing that a great writer can always do better than a great filmmaker.

If character is a book's greatest asset it makes no sense to me why any writer would start with plot. I would hesitantly say, actually, your plot - the specific scenes of your book - are positively irrelevant as important concerns. Plenty of fantastic books have relatively weak, or at least unoriginal, plots. A book like "On Chesil Beach" is about a virgin bridegroom prematurely ejaculating on his bride's stomach on their wedding night and feeling unhappy when the marriage fails. That's pretty much the entire plot right there. Sounds bloody crap doesn't it? _How was that even published? _Well it was, and shortlisted for the Booker Prize. Something like "The Old Man And The Sea" in synopsis form reads like a rudimentary children's parable. But it won a Nobel Prize, is still in print and studied today, and all for one reason: Because of how it detailed the experience of its character.

So my advice for character development is something rather simple: *Make it about them**. *That does not mean you have to have the character fully fleshed out prior to starting nor does it mean you cannot begin the process of forming an idea without having a specific character in mind; an event or theme or period of historical interest or whatever else it may be. What it means is that the story must be told through the lens of a human experience. The character must be active, not passive. The constant question should not be "What do I want to happen and how can I make Character X fit into it?" but something more like "Character X is here...what would they do now? What would I do if I were them? How would I feel? How would this impact Character Y?" And then see where the chips fall.

The brush strokes sentiment is one I generally agree with. Identifying how much or how little description to use largely comes down to genre and audience and the mood of the piece. Some genres demand, or at least permit, more ornate sentence structures with full-bodied descriptions. Some will work better with stark hints. As a general rule, the more description you use the closer the reader will feel to the character, but not all characters benefit from that. I do strongly agree that abundance of adjectives (and adverbs) is almost always the road to bad writing. While I think Ralph's two examples illustrate the point excellently, I would caution against following it religiously lest one inadvertently descend into the literary Gehenna that is _overwrite. _As a writer naturally prone to being verbose, I can tell you it is a difficult habit to have to remedy.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Aug 7, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> A story without serviceable characters is soup without water.
> 
> Most readers do not read books for plot. They read them for insights into the mental state of a character they would not otherwise be able to access. We know this because people still read books in spite of an ever-increasing influx of excellent television and film, most of which are much better equipped to portray _action._ The one thing (the only thing?) that books have which movies and TV never can overcome is the ability to examine in detail a character's sense of self and inner struggle. Part of this is probably to do with having actors. Part of it is certainly length. Part of it is the novel's ability to utilize varying points of view where films are almost always told in "third person omniscient". Whatever it is, we can safely say character exploration is the one thing that a great writer can always do better than a great filmmaker.




Very well said.
Scars, I'd love to see your process for developing characters. Do you use a blunt introduction (like the one I posted) or a more subtle intro? Throw a few samples up there.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Aug 7, 2018)

ironpony said:


> This is a very good read, thanks!
> 
> I was told before by a couple of people that I tend to throw the main character under the opening crisis too soon, without introducing him/her enough.  Do you think that after introducing the character, that it's okay to open with the crisis right in the first opening scene, as a hook for the readers?
> 
> Or do you think you need a few scenes to develop the character first before introducing the crisis that gets the plot rolling?  I've seen it done both ways, where some stories will open right with the crisis and introduce the main character in it.  But how do you do that, without the reader thinking they could have used more of a character introduction beforehand?





If you want to start with action, then use the scene to paint both the character as well as the scene. You can paint the scene thru the eyes of a character, which in turn illustrates the character (how they reflect upon the events says a lot about the character.)
example; think of that scene in Gladiator when Russel is going into the ring for the first time. Some characters pumped themselves up, some peed themselves, but Russell didn't seem to even care.


----------



## New Konoiche (Aug 7, 2018)

Great advice, Ralph Rotten! I agree that the details that make someone stand out are most important.

In other news, I love your description of Randy. He is totally someone I would like to read more about!


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 8, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Very well said.
> Scars, I'd love to see your process for developing characters. Do you use a blunt introduction (like the one I posted) or a more subtle intro? Throw a few samples up there.



Thank you.

I do use both however have been gradually moving away from the concept of introductions to adopt more of an in media res style of introduction, however this has less to do with a belief as to what works best generally and more about the needs of the specific piece and the kind of character.

One thing I think does not get discussed nearly as often as it should is the subject of rhythm. When reading a piece it is always necessary to change how information gets conveyed. We talk a great deal, rightly, about the importance of consistency in maintaining a narrative voice and not jarring the reader with sudden, inexplicable changes, however we talk less commonly about how the structure of any given story does need a degree of change. I would liken it to a music album where all the songs are recognizably by the same artist and quite possibly similar in terms of sound however if they all had extended intros and exactly the same formula it would start to become noticeable. Possibly incredibly insipid. 

There are, broadly, two different ways to introduce a character. One is where info about the character is given in very brief dispersed chunks in and between dialogue and actions, themselves usually designed to convey further, more subtle, clues about who they are. A good example is from the Dicken's novel Oliver Twist when Oliver meets the character who ultimately turns out to be the Artful Dodger



> 'Hullo, my covey! What's the row?' said a strange young gentleman to Oliver.
> 
> 'I am very hungry and tired,' replied Oliver: the tears standing in his eyes as he spoke. 'I have walked a long way. I have been walking these seven days.'
> 
> ...



Compare this to the passage that comes a short time later where Oliver gets introduced to Fagin, a character of approximately the same importance and role as the Artful Dodger and yet introduced in a very different, much more sinister way. This is where the "blunt introduction" usually comes in.



> In a frying-pan, which was on the fire, and which was secured to the mantelshelf by a string, some sausages were cooking; and standing over them, with a toasting-fork in his hand, was a very old shrivelled Jew, whose villainous-looking and repulsive face was obscured by a quantity of matted red hair. He was dressed in a greasy flannel gown, with his throat bare; and seemed to be dividing his attention between the frying-pan and the clothes-horse, over which a great number of silk handkerchiefsl were hanging. Several rough beds made of old sacks, were huddled side by side on the floor. Seated round the table were four or five boys, none older than the Dodger, smoking long clay pipes, and drinking spirits with the air of middle-aged men. These all crowded about their associate as he whispered a few words to the Jew; and then turned round and grinned at Oliver. So did the Jew himself, toasting-fork in hand.
> 
> 
> 'This is him, Fagin,' said Jack Dawkins; 'my friend Oliver Twist.'



There are a couple of things here:

- The Fagin introduction may tell us a good dead more about the character, however in this case it does NOT make the character any more attractive. It actually has the opposite effect. By describing characters in the language of how we might describe animals it implies monstrosity (compare this description to how Bram Stoker describes Dracula, for instance). This is true EVEN if it is clear from what is being said we are describing a human. So detail does not always result in empathy. The language is important.
- While neither character is given a name, the first is given an identity through use of speech and slang. Witholding the name from Dodger does not dehumanize him but simply puts us in the shoes of Oliver who is meeting him for the first time and not sure who he is. On the other hand, Fagin's nameless introduction is obviously NOT to put us in Oliver's shoes at all as it uses words and terms and ideas that a small, naive boy would not be able to articulate (such as referring to his "villainous" face). Fagin's introduction is undoubtedly written for the reader, his characteristics appealing to 19th century adult prejudices, phobias and paranoia.
- The Dodger introduction facilitates comparable amounts of information even though most of it is merely implied through dialogue and action. In a few lines of dialogue we learn a great deal about the approximate geography (London/Home Counties), his social class, his lack of money, his self-confidence...all things that chord together consistently to provide an easy image. These are excellent starting points for further exposition of his character which happens at a fairly consistent rate as the novel goes on. Fagins works the same way, however with less implied up front the reader has far less need to hunt for clues. We already know the kind of character we are dealing with.

Phew! All that to say that neither is necessarily a better approach for writing a great novel but entirely down to achieving a desired effect. Fagin's introduction is probably the easier one from the point of view of "getting it out of the way" and for quickly dictating the "kind" of character, but with two problems (which probably apply to your intros as well). 

Number One: It relies on a certain flair for description that somebody like Dickens is obviously fantastic at but not all writers are able to supply. For a budget thriller writer like, for instance, James Patterson who relies on TV-style exchanges and short, quick scenes any intro lasting longer than a sentence or two is probably going to be a chore. Number Two: This sort of thing _can be_ boring when done again and again. We have a problem of how the math and word count will add up. If there are, for sake of argument, 20 characters in your novel (which would likely be a quite conservative number for ALL characters regardless of how minor they are) and you spend ~300 words on a "short introduction" for each and every one (which again may be conservative - the example Ralph Posted was 225 words and seemed on the briefer side for a protagonist) that is about 6,000 words. When you consider that this is, when it comes down to it, 6,000 words of pure "Hi My Name Is Bob and I'm an Alcoholic..." with NO movement in the narrative, no dialogue, no development, nothing actually happening you are asking for a certain degree of patience the reader may or may not be willing to give. This is especially true if the character in question isn't especially interesting or unique. Myself I will often feel most tempted to put the book down during such passages. You have to justify my time.

The best way to figure out what works comes down to trial an error. If I am unsure how to introduce a character I will often begin with the "Fagin" approach (since it's quicker and simpler to insert and remove a single paragraph or so) and if I feel I am entering info-dump territory or that the wrong impression is being given - perhaps the result is a character that seems rather more intimidating than they need to be - I will take out that paragraph or two, save it, and look at how I can subtly introduce the same important information through other means. If nothing else writing a "Fagin" is good brainstorming for those who would otherwise not tend to brainstorm.

--***I apologize in advance for any perception of antisemitism with using the phrase "Jew" as it was originally used in the novel quoted. I considered taking it out but left it for literary reasons. If it offends please feel free to remove it. --


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 9, 2018)

I try to make my characters come out of the action and dialogue. That makes it awkward to provide physical description, especially of the main character, but I'm more interested in mental stuff anyway.



> I put my head in my hands and cannot stop weeping.
> 
> 
> Why did I say I could turn straw into gold?



That's the start to a short story. It's setting, but your guess on character is likely to be right. For example, she doesn't act that smart.

I'm in first person present, so the word choice is character. Another start:



> I start my dying when I see a strange car in our driveway.



Without the "my", dying is more like something that happens to him; with the "my", it becomes more like something he owns. He never gets above depressed in the whole short story.


I try to be relentlessly consistent in my characters, so that they are always in character.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Aug 11, 2018)

Lucky:
That was a great example of brush strokes from Dickens. I have to admit I never read Oliver (but am a big fan of the musical  )

To illustrate what I was talking about using brush strokes to continually paint the scene and characters, I underlined them:
The bold sections are where Dickens used speech patterns to illustrate the Dodger
(In the UK, your accent speaks to your station or heritage, at least according to Rex Harrison  )




'*Hullo, my covey! What's the row*?' said a strange young gentleman to Oliver.

'I am very hungry and tired,' replied Oliver: the tears standing in his eyes as he spoke. 'I have walked a long way. I have been walking these seven days.'


'*Walking for sivin days*!' said the young gentleman. 'Oh, I see. Beak's order, eh? But,' he added, noticing Oliver's look of surprise, 'I suppose you don't know what a beak is, my flash com-pan-i-on.'


Oliver mildly replied, that he had always heard a bird's mouth described by the term in question.


'My eyes, how green!' exclaimed the young gentleman. 'Why, a beak's a madgst'rate; and when you walk by a beak's order, it's not straight forerd, but always *agoing *up, and *niver* a coming down* agin*. Was you never on the mill?'


'What mill?' inquired Oliver.


'What mill! Why, THE mill--the mill as takes up so little room that it'll work inside a Stone Jug; and always goes better when the wind's low with people, than when it's high; acos then they can't get workmen. But come,' said the young gentleman; 'you want grub, and you shall have it. I'm at low-water-mark myself--only one bob and a magpie; but, as far as it goes, I'll fork out and stump. Up with you on your pins. There! Now then!


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Aug 15, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> I try to make my characters come out of the action and dialogue. That makes it awkward to provide physical description, especially of the main character, but I'm more interested in mental stuff anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This response made me think of the differences of character development between 1st person perspective and 3rd person. It's a whole 'nother ballgame when writing from 1st person.

I am reading "Lessons in lying" by Kate Cameron, and I found it interesting how she both painted the situation and the character at the same time. Kate should post her first page or 2 to show how she illustrates a character from a 1st person perspective.


----------



## Newman (Aug 17, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Character development: the nuts & bolts of it



It's a function of change.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Aug 19, 2018)

Newman said:


> It's a function of change.




10-9?


----------



## Otto Gramm (Aug 26, 2018)

That was a great reading! You've pointed out my "noob" skills with one strike! Thank you!
But I'd also like to ask a question of time using while decscribing. I haven't found an appropriate topic in here, maybe just not yet. But if the story is mostly written in the past tense is it possible to "switch" someteimes to present?
I so that some authors couls use different times even in one sentence.
Ex:
_But one day when the boy *was* seven years old, untaught and knowing nothing of the arts and powers that *are* in the world, he heard his aunt crying out words to a goat which had jumped up onto the thatch of a hut and would not come down...
_
I am not a native Enlish speaker and I was taught that in the complex sentence starten in the Past the rest of it must declined.


----------



## bdcharles (Aug 26, 2018)

Otto Gramm said:


> That was a great reading! You've pointed out my "noob" skills with one strike! Thank you!
> But I'd also like to ask a question of time using while decscribing. I haven't found an appropriate topic in here, maybe just not yet. But if the story is mostly written in the past tense is it possible to "switch" someteimes to present?
> I so that some authors couls use different times even in one sentence.
> Ex:
> ...



That definitely "works". It does however give a little bit of a change in perspective, so that before we get to the "are", we are with the boy and in his POV and his head. When we get to the "are" we are pulled out into a more omniscient POV. Both totally valid, but each can do different things. Omniscient can give us great scope to the story, whereas close POV really makes characters come alive. Use both.  I like to open scenes with Omni and then slide into close, to sort of, ahem, bookend the characters with epicness. Or something.

Interesting blog on the subject *here*.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Aug 26, 2018)

Otto Gramm said:


> That was a great reading! You've pointed out my "noob" skills with one strike! Thank you!
> But I'd also like to ask a question of time using while decscribing. I haven't found an appropriate topic in here, maybe just not yet. But if the story is mostly written in the past tense is it possible to "switch" someteimes to present?
> I so that some authors couls use different times even in one sentence.
> Ex:
> ...



The sentence can be reworded slightly to eliminate the problem. 


> But one day when the boy was seven years old, untaught and knowing nothing of the *world's* arts and powers, he heard his aunt crying out words to a goat which had jumped up onto the thatch of a hut and would not come down...


----------



## Otto Gramm (Aug 26, 2018)

bdcharles said:


> That definitely "works". It does however give a little bit of a change in perspective, so that before we get to the "are", we are with the boy and in his POV and his head. When we get to the "are" we are pulled out into a more omniscient POV. Both totally valid, but each can do different things. Omniscient can give us great scope to the story, whereas close POV really makes characters come alive. Use both.  I like to open scenes with Omni and then slide into close, to sort of, ahem, bookend the characters with epicness. Or something.
> 
> Interesting blog on the subject *here*.



Thank you for the answer and for the link. I found that material quite perspective for POV developping.


----------



## Otto Gramm (Aug 26, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> The sentence can be reworded slightly to eliminate the problem.



That's the quote from Ursula le Guin's book so I'm not the one in charge here)))


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Aug 26, 2018)

Otto; don't feel bad if you have trouble with English. It is said to be the hardest language to learn, mainly because it is a hodgepodge made from half a dozen other languages. We stole half the language.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Aug 26, 2018)

I know Otto could benefit greatly from just deleting every adjective and adverb he sees to improve the readability of his work. I mean delete everyone of these. No one told me but having too many can lead to disjointedness in sentences and makes the sentence read bad outloud. Hemingway came up with it when he wrote the clean and simple sentences in his stories. Chris miller first gave me this advice, and it is the style aspect that storytellers who are not native speakers need to know. It makes it seem incorrect grammar when it is read outloud to yourself. I'd personally delete them all and add them at the end (leaving one or two).


----------



## JJBuchholz (Aug 26, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> Important things need to be told as early as possible.



Agreed. Get it out of the way and let such important bits help set the tone of the story being told, rather than jamming it in when it's too late.



Jack of all trades said:


> I tend to go light on character descriptions. I like leaving most characters up to the reader to imagine as they see fit. It's the personalities that I spend time and words defining.



I do the very same thing! I prefer having the reader concoct the story in their minds by using minimal descriptions, while going heavy on personality, mannerisms, and traits.

-JJB


----------



## Otto Gramm (Aug 27, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Otto; don't feel bad if you have trouble with English. It is said to be the hardest language to learn, mainly because it is a hodgepodge made from half a dozen other languages. We stole half the language.



Thanks, but I never felt bad about it. I am a quick learner and quite a stubborn one. I love languages and never stop learning them especialy as I have good books and a cup of a hot black tea!


----------



## Otto Gramm (Aug 27, 2018)

Theglasshouse said:


> I know Otto could benefit greatly from just deleting every adjective and adverb he sees to improve the readability of his work. I mean delete everyone of these. No one told me but having too many can lead to disjointedness in sentences and makes the sentence read bad outloud. Hemingway came up with it when he wrote the clean and simple sentences in his stories. Chris miller first gave me this advice, and it is the style aspect that storytellers who are not native speakers need to know. It makes it seem incorrect grammar when it is read outloud to yourself. I'd personally delete them all and add them at the end (leaving one or two).



I agree about it for 100%. So far I want to put away my works and have a good studying. After that I'd like to look with a fresh eye on my writing.
P.S. I am a girl so you'd use "her" not "his":queen:;-)


----------



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

JJBuchholz said:


> Agreed. Get it out of the way and let such important bits help set the tone of the story being told, rather than jamming it in when it's too late.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Great minds think alike!


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Aug 29, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Back in the day I used to get a lotta rejections because even though I wrote a good story, I had zero character development.  My problem was that I didn't even understand what character development was.
> I thought character development was spending a whole page describing a person from top to bottom, or awkwardly telling their whole back story like a noob.  It took me a few years (and a lot of rejections) to finally understand what the #@$ I was doing.



You act as though those are bad ways to develop a character, but then the entirety of the rest of your post is doing just that: "developing" a character by just dumping information on the reader.  That's character introduction, not development.  True character development doesn't happen on the first page; it happens throughout the story as characters react to and change from the events around them.  The most basic example, of course, is the Hero's Journey, where a character starts out as one thing and returns as something else.

Even if I have an idea of who my characters are when I begin writing, I learn about them and what's important to them as the story goes on.  Whenever a catalyst occurs, I consider how the characters would respond to it, and how it affects them afterward.  And that's the essence of character development: injecting conflict and putting your characters outside of their comfort zones.  That's how we grow in real life; why should it be any different in a story?


----------

