# Introducing your hero (protagonist)



## Douglas (Feb 17, 2014)

Action first then description?

Description first then action?

Both?

Your views on this would be welcome.

Kind regards,
Douglas


----------



## Sam (Feb 17, 2014)

Most readers tend to want something that hooks them in the first sentence, so I usually go with action, but as far as describing the protagonist goes: I don't. Hair colour and height are usually the only descriptions I give, leaving everything else to the reader's imagination.


----------



## Bishop (Feb 17, 2014)

Generally, I do action as well. My protagonist in my novel was introduced by yelling at one of his crew members.

No physical description until 10 chapters in, and only that is because he changed into formal clothes--nothing about his face or hair or anything, just the clothes.


----------



## popsprocket (Feb 17, 2014)

Action.

I never directly describe characters. I find it to be largely superfluous and wholly clumsy to describe someone's appearance, which, of course, makes it far inferior to action as a way to start a story. The only description my characters get is indirectly through the comments of others at various points.


----------



## Stardust (Feb 17, 2014)

I think it can be a combination of both. Anything will be cliche, but I prefer to say something maybe anywhere from a sentence to a paragraph in where the character has to get the (color) hair out of their (color) eyes. Something like that.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Feb 17, 2014)

Sam said:


> but as far as describing the protagonist goes: I don't. Hair colour and height are usually the only descriptions I give, leaving everything else to the reader's imagination.



So I'm NOT the only one who does that.

I have gotten _so _much grief from some reviewers about the lack of character (especially MC) description. I tend to be a minimalist in most of my descriptions, whether it be character or surroundings, mostly because I know how bored I get when someone takes 1500 words to describe a freakin leaf or something. Okay, so I'm exaggerating a bit. But not a lot for some cases.

I keep coming back to Clan of the Cave Bear...that book was so bloated by the author's tendency to describe things in excruciating detail that it bored me almost to tears.


----------



## Tiamat (Feb 17, 2014)

Action.  Nobody is going to give a rat's wazoo what your character looks like if they haven't been made interesting yet.  In fact, I'm pretty sure nobody gives a rat's wazoo what your character looks like in your mind at all.  Certainly it doesn't hurt to throw out little descriptors _as they're needed_, but odds are, the reader is going to picture the character how they think he/she should look, and they're not going to pay much attention to you in that regard.


----------



## TheYellowMustang (Feb 18, 2014)

The last book I read was "Hope: A Tragedy". I can't remember a single description of the narrator's appearance, but I still have a detailed mental picture of him, and an even clearer one of his personality and demeanor. However, my favorite book is Harry Potter, and Rowling frequently mentions Harry's jet-black hair and green eyes (his hair- and eye-color actually matter to the plot though - even in the very last book it's used to make an emotional scene even more powerful).

My point: it all depends on the story, the writer and the narrator, but describing how characters look isn't a necessity. That said, if I had to choose between action or description first, I'd go with action. A good rule is to not dedicate an entire paragraph to describing how someone look, but rather work it into the action. "Carrie had blue eyes" versus "Carrie traced her eyeliner around the edge of her bright blue eye" - I'd go with the latter.


----------



## Douglas (Feb 19, 2014)

Thanks for your views and comments.
My first chapter now opens with full-on action and no description of the protagonist.


----------



## Tyrannohotep (Feb 19, 2014)

Douglas said:


> Action first then description?
> 
> Description first then action?
> 
> ...


Action first may be more popular in today's minimalist epoch, and admittedly it's the approach I often go with just to be safe. That said, I am no minimalist when it comes to character descriptions, at least not when it comes to the major ones. Most of my characters come from visibly non-European ethnic groups. so I feel it's important to mention at least their racial characteristics and maybe a few articles of clothing. I don't want them to be whitewashed by illustrators or fan artists after all.


----------



## Sam (Feb 19, 2014)

It doesn't matter how much you describe a character; a reader will still put their own picture to the person. So describing them in insane detail is often redundant.


----------



## N J Xkey (Feb 19, 2014)

T.S.Bpwman said:


> So I'm NOT the only one who does that.
> 
> I tend to be a minimalist in most of my descriptions, whether it be character or surroundings, mostly because I know how bored I get when someone takes 1500 words to describe a freakin leaf or something. Okay, so I'm exaggerating a bit. But not a lot for some cases.
> 
> I keep coming back to Clan of the Cave Bear...that book was so bloated by the author's tendency to describe things in excruciating detail that it bored me almost to tears.



Ha ha, you're not wrong there. I enjoyed those books but I must confess I skimmed a lot of the descriptive passages! I'm the same, my characters are usually introduced with action and/or dialogue. I include very little physical description, just one or two things that are pertinent. The only mention to appearance for one of them is that he "licked the grease off his large fingers", combined with his dialogue those that have read my wip so far have very clear images in their mind of what he looks like without the need to go in to it. I do have one character who was introduced with physical description, a whole two lines of it which is a lot for me. However, she is a character who projects a very particular image with how she looks. I hope having her introduced this way when others aren't gives the reader the impression that her looks are important to her.

I know there will be some of my beta readers (who are die hard fantasy fans) who may feel description is lacking, but personally although I love fantasy books I tend to skim read a lot more than in any other genre. I really dislike too much description, and I know lots of avid readers who say that when it comes to fantasy it is the one genre where they prefer to watch the film/series than read the book for that very reason. So, I'm writing what I would like to read and hoping others will feel the same


----------



## J Anfinson (Feb 19, 2014)

I start with action and add character description if and when it feels natural to.


----------



## Jeko (Feb 19, 2014)

I think 'why do people read stories?' and remember that it isn't for pictures; it's for stories. So, I start with the story. This usually involves something happening, and so is usually action. Speech is also a good opener, IMO, as long as something is meant to be spoken,


----------



## Newman (Feb 19, 2014)

Douglas said:


> Action first then description?
> 
> Description first then action?
> 
> ...



In a way, they're kind of the same thing: both will tell you something about the character.

Personally, I'd go for action first.


----------



## Tettsuo (Feb 19, 2014)

Action

But, I think I should define what "action" means to me.

When I say action, I'm thinking of something that's happening.  It doesn't have to a car chase, or a shoot out or even someone sneaking about.  Action is an event that's taking place as soon as the reader begins reading.  A conversation, a person reading a warning sign as they're driving by, a man trying to avoid a sick person on the subway, etc.


----------



## Vain Vanir (Feb 22, 2014)

I'd also say action but followed fairly soon by a general description. Don't like at all to imagine a character to look like X only to half a book later get info that he actually looks like Z.


----------



## Jeko (Feb 22, 2014)

> Don't like at all to imagine a character to look like X only to half a book later get info that he actually looks like Z.



The other solution is to not have them described at all. I prefer this if the description is unimportant.


----------



## Hitotsmami (Feb 22, 2014)

For me, I describe my hero character with action. If I want to describe my character's appearance in some way, I'll mention it after dialogue, like: "I'd really adore a trip to Paris," said Julie, twisting her long blonde hair around her finger. Nothing direct.

Even now though I get caught up with overly describing characters. You just have to teach yourself to step back, don't do those descriptions, and write anyway. Then, re-read what you wrote and you might be surprised by how clear your character is even though you haven't directly described anything.


----------



## Jeko (Feb 22, 2014)

> You just have to teach yourself to step back, don't do those descriptions, and write anyway. Then, re-read what you wrote and you might be surprised by how clear your character is even though you haven't directly described anything.



This. More often, you can gauge how good a writer is by what they _don't _write.


----------



## Bishop (Feb 22, 2014)

I can't remember who said it (if you can, let me know) but someone said:

"I don't want to read what a person looks like in a book, I just want to hear them talk and I'll come up with what they look like."

It's the idea that appearance can often come through best in their dialogue.

PS--I think it might have been in one of Steinbeck's books...


----------



## Riptide (Feb 22, 2014)

I describe my action, yes.

I like adding description. I usually do hair color/style, height, physique, eyes, and anything unusual that the character has. Oh, and the gender, and skin color.

Edit: There are many avenues for doing this. 


I've been chided once from unintentionally holding back the gender of my MC, but I thought it was obvious. Of course, I wrote the piece so I knew everything.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Feb 22, 2014)

Vain Vanir said:


> I'd also say action but followed fairly soon by a general description. Don't like at all to imagine a character to look like X only to half a book later get info that he actually looks like Z.



Wouldn't that be a good reason to not do much as far as describing him. Maybe height, weight and hair color would suffice. The reader can use their own imagination to picture what a character looks like. 

I think most of them do that anyway. If a reader isn't given a detailed description right away, they form a picture of what the hero looks like. Even if the description found late on isn't correct, the mind's eye will usually stick with the original image they came up with. 

Or maybe that's just me. *snicker*


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Feb 22, 2014)

Cadence said:


> The other solution is to not have them described at all. I prefer this if the description is unimportant.



I agree with this. However, in what instance would describing your hero/main character in your work not be considered important?

*edit* Sorry, Cadence. I didn't read all of the responses before I made my previous post.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Feb 22, 2014)

Bishop said:


> "I don't want to read what a person looks like in a book, I just want to hear them talk and I'll come up with what they look like."



I guess it _isn't_ just me.


----------



## Bishop (Feb 22, 2014)

One thing I should add is that I often like to describe clothing, especially if it's unique. If they're wearing a ten gallon hat with a plethora of feathers sticking out of its band, that can really add color to the character. Clothing is interchangeable, though, so you run into less issue of people imagining one thing and later finding out it's something completely different. I also think that clothing and what characters do with that clothing can be indicative of emotional quirks.

For instance, one of my characters has a favorite hoodie, and when she's nervous she chews on the drawstrings of it, so they're described as mangled and wet, or in her mouth as needed.

Bishop


----------



## TheYellowMustang (Feb 22, 2014)

Bishop said:


> One thing I should add is that I often like to describe clothing, especially if it's unique. If they're wearing a ten gallon hat with a plethora of feathers sticking out of its band, that can really add color to the character. Clothing is interchangeable, though, so you run into less issue of people imagining one thing and later finding out it's something completely different. I also think that clothing and what characters do with that clothing can be indicative of emotional quirks.
> 
> For instance, one of my characters has a favorite hoodie, and when she's nervous she chews on the drawstrings of it, so they're described as mangled and wet, or in her mouth as needed.
> 
> Bishop



I like describing clothing too, but I try to limit myself to only doing it if my narrator has some kind of reaction to it (surprise, lust, dislike etc). It's written in first person though, and he's a teenager. I don't know a lot of teenage boys who notice what everyone's wearing unless they have a specific reason to. Regarding descriptions of a main character's appearance, I think people underestimate the value of how other people treat and react to them.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Feb 22, 2014)

I believe description slows down the pace of a story.  I like the pace to be quick.  So, I boil down description to what is minimally necessary.  Unless it is critical that the reader know some description of the hero, the hero is never described in my stories.  In fact, none of the secondary characters are described either.

I break this rule when the description is important symbolically (ex. Harry  Potter's lightning bolt scar) or absolutely critical to the story (ex. some rough approximation of Potter's age) or helps understand a character's psychology (ex. if the eldest child in a family is a big muscle-laden guy  and the hero, his brother, is a year younger, slender, wears glasses, and is of fair complexion that suggests a lot that I don't need to slow down the story to explain).

I introduce characters with action.


----------



## Gaurav (Feb 24, 2014)

With action of course. If you start description from the very first word, readers will lose interest in the story. More precisely I like to start with conversation, which can hook the attention of the reader.


----------



## ViKtoricus (Feb 24, 2014)

Douglas said:


> Action first then description?
> 
> Description first then action?
> 
> ...



Personally, I go with description first.

I describe what I want my readers to feel. I don't describe what my character looks like so much as I describe HOW he looks like. For example, someone might say...

She had an hourglass figure and blue eyes.

I'd say.

She was an epitome of a sex symbol.

I think the latter is better at making the reader see a truly sexy female character.


----------



## Jeko (Feb 24, 2014)

> I describe what I want my readers to feel. I don't describe what my character looks like so much as I describe HOW he looks like. For example, someone might say...
> 
> She had an hourglass figure and blue eyes.
> 
> ...



The latter is a comment; you are 'telling' rather than 'showing'. The former is impartial and allows the reader to make up their own mind, as it is just description. The former is far better.

I rarely open with comment unless I am using a character's voice that the reader can connect with immediately.


----------



## Bishop (Feb 24, 2014)

Cadence said:


> The latter is a comment; you are 'telling' rather than 'showing'. The former is impartial and allows the reader to make up their own mind, as it is just description. The former is far better.
> 
> I rarely open with comment unless I am using a character's voice that the reader can connect with immediately.



I have to agree here. Show the detail (hourglass figure, blue eyes) and show it through a character's eyes. I might do something like this:

"John gazed at her, eyes outlining her hourglass figure up to her face. There, her blue eyes transfixed his gaze and he shuddered, hoping they didn't see his shameful desire for her."

Gets a bit of both, and gives you insight to the character.


----------



## ViKtoricus (Feb 24, 2014)

Cadence said:


> The former is far better.



I should give a different latter.

_She had a most stunning body that was attractive to all men.

_EDIT: The sentence above is Dostoevsky-like, and I love them that way. I literally did not describe, show, or tell a single solid physical characteristic of the woman, yet the readers drew a powerful image in their minds. The only drawback is that this image is as unique to them as their own fingerprints, though I believe it is worth the loss.


----------



## Jeko (Feb 24, 2014)

> _She had a most stunning body that was attractive to all men._



It's still comment.

If you saw an hourglass figure, blue eyes, etc., you might think a woman is beautiful. You wouldn't if she went around wearing a shirt saying 'I'm beautiful'; you trust _your _opinion, not hers. Likewise, an audience can judge for themselves if something is beautiful. Informing them that someone is beautiful without any detail makes them completely disregard the notion.

The words that you don't write are what the reader thinks. If you write what they're supposed to think, they won't think it. They'll just read it.


----------



## ViKtoricus (Feb 24, 2014)

Cadence said:


> It's still comment.
> 
> If you saw an hourglass figure, blue eyes, etc., you might think a woman is beautiful. You wouldn't if she went around wearing a shirt saying 'I'm beautiful'; you trust _your _opinion, not hers. Likewise, an audience can judge for themselves if something is beautiful. Informing them that someone is beautiful without any detail makes them completely disregard the notion.
> 
> The words that you don't write are what the reader thinks. If you write what they're supposed to think, they won't think it. They'll just read it.





Wow...

This is weird.

I can sense that you know what you are talking about, but for some reason, I can't believe what you are saying.

I have read Dostoevsky's works, and I will tell you this. He had a habit of blatantly telling the reader what he wanted the reader to think.

Here's an example sentence (not a quote, but an example of what you will find in any of his books.).

_He is handsome.

_I swear, he would blatantly TELL that and I would, in my mind, evoke an image of a handsome man. So I can't say I agree with you.


----------



## Jeko (Feb 24, 2014)

> Wow...
> 
> This is weird.
> 
> ...



Dostoevsky's style worked to his purpose; you are not Dostoevsky. There are many more factors that make his choices successful; these coe together to make him an individual and effective writer.

To be one yourself, you must see writing through a broad spectrum of reading. If there is one fundamental truth of all writing, it is that what you write will bring to mind what you don't write. If you want the audience to know that the narrator believes someone to be handsome, have the narrator tell them. If you want the reader to decide for themselves, leave opinion out of it.

Don't agree or disagree with what people say; interrogate it for yourself. No matter what your stance is, you can learn a lot from anything anyone says if you explore and expand upon it. IMO, the deeper meaning of the show/tell philosophy is integral to the writing discipline.


----------



## Sam (Feb 24, 2014)

ViKtoricus said:


> Personally, I go with description first.
> 
> I describe what I want my readers to feel. I don't describe what my character looks like so much as I describe HOW he looks like. For example, someone might say...
> 
> ...



No, it isn't. It's a way of making the reader realise that you can objectify a female character while making her superficial.


----------



## Bishop (Feb 24, 2014)

Dostoevsky wrote in a far different time period, and also was not necessarily perfect. There are things he did right and things he did wrong. What made him great was his stories, more than his style.

Also, what you said about fingerprints is true, and is the issue. A symbol of sex for a man and a woman is different. A symbol of sex for one man is different than the next. Some people find X attractive when Y makes them ill, and vice versa for the person sitting next to them on the bus. By giving us an image, even in some small way, we get an idea of what the character is. Otherwise? They're walking adjectives, rather than images of people in our mind. 

Bishop


----------



## ViKtoricus (Feb 24, 2014)

Bishop said:


> Also, what you said about fingerprints is true, and is the issue. A symbol of sex for a man and a woman is different. A symbol of sex for one man is different than the next. Some people find X attractive when Y makes them ill, and vice versa for the person sitting next to them on the bus. By giving us an image, even in some small way, we get an idea of what the character is. Otherwise? They're walking adjectives, rather than images of people in our mind.
> 
> Bishop



But those walking adjectives will magically turn into something far more beautiful than what you yourself have imagined.

One of the rules of power, according to my favorite author of all time, Robert Greene, is that you should let others do the work for you.

When writing, you should provide just enough description to entice the minds of the readers, *so they, themselves, create an image from their OWN minds, whatever that beautiful image be.

*The result? The reader came up with something all by himself, and will blame the euphoria on YOU (because in all fairness, you seduced them to imagine what to imagine.).

Stephen King covers this in _On Writing.

_I learned from him, from his very words, that telling that a person looks bad is a better way to induce images of a bad-looking person than to actually describe the bad things that he wear.

I'm terrible at making examples, but when I get the chance, I may directly quote King's and Greene's words into this thread, or another relevant thread.


----------



## Bishop (Feb 24, 2014)

ViKtoricus said:


> One of the rules of power, according to my favorite author of all time, Robert Greene, is that you should let others do the work for you.
> 
> When writing, you should provide just enough description to entice the minds of the readers, *so they, themselves, create an image from their OWN minds, whatever that beautiful image be.
> *



Very true, however King very often offers description, both physical and non-physical of his characters. I've read _On Writing_, and consider it a great source for growing as a writer, but I think you might be narrowly interpreting it. Yes, letting the reader create an image is the idea, but if I just say "weird alien" for my alien character, they'll never see his blue skin with green spots, or his six arms with no thumbs. I think as a source of learning, actually reading King's work will display my point. I studied King for a semester in college, and I can tell you that the best images I had in my mind that he'd written were grounded in at least one physical trait I could relate to. In "IT" Eddie Kaspbrak comes to mind. He's described as a thin, pale, hypcondriac, and an image forms. I don't know his hair color or shoe size, but I relate instantly to pale, thin people I've known and an image forms. His wife? Blubbering and thick, weepy and nervous. Now I've got a fresh image. I don't know what color her eyes are, or if she wears lipstick. I fill those in, but by knowing she's a chunky woman, I have enough to build my own.

Had he just said, "He was a hypochondriac," a million images form. He could be a man the size of the incredible hulk who just gets worried when he gets the sniffles. Without it, I'm left with just "guy who thinks he's sick all the time," and I don't feel motivated to form my own image.

I think what is important is to hook the reader with a key element or two and let them fill in the blanks. Then, it's an amalgamation of what you as a writer wanted to create and what we as the readers wanted to see.

Bishop


----------



## Tettsuo (Feb 24, 2014)

Douglas said:


> Action first then description?
> 
> Description first then action?
> 
> ...



Any of the three can be possible... IF you can make it work.


----------



## Jeko (Feb 25, 2014)

> you should let others do the work for you.



Then why are you going to the effort of coming to a conclusion for them? They should come to a conclusion themselves.

Reading is a two-person relationship. The writer does their bit, and the reader does their bit, and a story is told. You'll find that modern trends try to hide the narrator through letting the reader have control over the important judgments; the narrator only influences their deliberations through the choice of detail.

If you tell me someone is beautiful, I will not go into the effort of imagining a beautiful person. I don't have time for that.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Feb 25, 2014)

I've been reading this thread and the only thing that comes to mind is this...

The worst thing a writer can ever do is insult the reader's intelligence. Readers are a savvy lot. They have, most likely, read a whole lot of books in their lifetimes. I am one of them.

If I was to ever pick up a book and the author described a woman as being "sexy to all men", I would immediately put it down and go in search of another. I don't want someone _telling _me something like that. For one thing, it's insulting that the author thinks me incapable of using my own imagination to come up with the image of a sexy woman. For another, as Bishop and others have pointed out, there is no such woman on the face of this, or any other, planet.

Using Dostoevsky as an example of the lines you want to write has one big problem with it. How long ago did he write his works? The world is a whole lot different place now. What worked for him then, in some cases, wouldn't work for him now because of how hard it is to make people part with their hard earned money.

In my noel, my MC bumps into a girl on the street. He thinks that she is the most beautiful woman he has ever seen and the only description I give about her is that she has green eyes. That's it. I wanted to leave it up to the reader to see their own version of that woman. I am nearly as sparing in my description of my MC. Actually, probably worse as I don't recall even having given him an eye color.

My suggestion, and take this as you will, is to stop trying to write like someone else. Don't try to be King. You'll fail at it. There is only one Stephen King and he's still around and cranking out novels. Don't try to be Dostoevsky. What he did in his time may have been ok. In today's literary market, it's not going to work all that well. 

Basically, don't tell the reader what to think. 

Just tell them a story.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Feb 25, 2014)

Bishop said:


> I studied King for a semester in college, and I can tell you that the best images I had in my mind that he'd written were grounded in at least one physical trait I could relate to. In "IT" Eddie Kaspbrak comes to mind. He's described as a thin, pale, hypcondriac, and an image forms. I don't know his hair color or shoe size, but I relate instantly to pale, thin people I've known and an image forms. His wife? Blubbering and thick, weepy and nervous. Now I've got a fresh image. I don't know what color her eyes are, or if she wears lipstick. I fill those in, but by knowing she's a chunky woman, I have enough to build my own.



_*This*_ is exactly what I mean. I never realized, until Bishop pointed it out, how sparing the descriptions of those two characters was. But, in my mind, I know _exactly what they look like._ 

Ya know what, though? I have ten bucks that says my vision of Eddie is not the same (probably not even close) as Bishop's.

That, to me, is the whole idea. Give the readers a few seeds, but let them grow the trees themselves.


----------



## Shari Sakurai (Feb 25, 2014)

Douglas said:


> Action first then description?
> 
> Description first then action?
> 
> ...



I'd go with action first. You want to grab the reader's attention from the start.


----------



## Apple Ice (Feb 25, 2014)

To echo what others have said (I've been doing an impressive amount of echoing recently, it seems) I would start with action. Obviously it doesn't have to be an airborne triple barrel role followed by a laser knife fight with an ox, but it's better something happens.

As for character description, I see it as a colouring book, you decide the rather vague outline of a character and give it to the reader to then colour and flesh it out to their preference.


----------



## Bishop (Feb 25, 2014)

Apple Ice said:


> As for character description, I see it as a colouring book, you decide the rather vague outline of a character and give it to the reader to then colour and flesh it out to their preference.



I like that coloring book metaphor, well said!!!

Bishop


----------



## thepancreas11 (Feb 25, 2014)

Take J.K. Rowling, the most successful author financially that has ever lived (without inflation of course). Someone already pointed out that there are two things that J.K. always use describe Harry. Really, it's three: the scar, the eyes, the hair. Why would she do this on a constant basis? We all know what Harry looks like. We've all seen the movies and the covers and read the first book. What's so damn important about his hair, his scar, and his eyes?

EVERYTHING. That's why she includes them.

The scar...well, a toddler could tell you why that's in there. It's the Voldemort-y part of him that kind of defines the entire story. The hair, well, it's something most people notice, and it says that he's like a mirror image of his father. The eyes, she includes, because that the Lily part of him. For six and a half books, they might not feel that important. Okay, we get it, he looks almost entirely like his father...except the bit about his eyes. That's his mother. Then, KABLAMO! we look into the Pensieve and see Snape's memories and it all makes sense. Snape sees his father every time he sees Harry, the tall figure, the glasses, the unruly BLACK HAIR, and he's reminded of his arch-nemesis, the man that took his love away. AND NOW YOU KNOW WHY HE HATES HARRY (well, you kind of already knew that, but it's exponential hate now...). What's more, every time he sees Harry, those eyes remind him of Lily. Those eyes which seemed really insignificant the whole story ARE THE REASON WHY HARRY FINDS THE SWORD OF GRYFFINDOR AND ALL THAT OTHER JAZZ.

The point here is that J.K. does an exceptional job of making the physical descriptions count. In her case, most of the characters are kind of caricatures of their personalities and their standings in the wizard society, a feat that might be near impossible to match. The thing you should learn from our billion dollar friend Joanne is that what you decide to include has to count. If you're going to lead with description, every word you say has to be imperative to understanding the plot or the character, or in some cases, a little of both. Don't waste words.


----------



## Morkonan (Feb 25, 2014)

Douglas said:


> Action first then description?
> 
> Description first then action?
> 
> ...



I think that neither one is more appropriate than the other. It all depends on the context and what it is you're describing about your character. However, if you're starting off the work on line one, page one, with your character, then it's likely that some sort of "action" is appropriate. But, it's not because it's more appropriate for a character introduction, it's that it's more often more effective than simple description in an opening at gaining the Reader's interest. You can take advantage of that general tendency by using an "action" introduction for your character, but you don't have to. You could be equally effective with a descriptive opening for your character.

And, most effective of all would be a combination of both an interesting description of your character doing something that qualifies as interesting action. Why not combine the two instead of trying to force an either/or situation? In the end, it's a sort of holistic thing - Your Reader's impression of your character is formed by many attributes, some of which don't even include anything directly or realistically related to a "character."


----------

