|
|
Joined: 1/10/2012
Posts: 192
|
I've seen a few related posts, but nothing seemed to fit, exactly, so I'm starting a new thread.
I've discovered that I suck at character development. It's okay; I've come to terms with it and plan to learn and fix all that. So, in my quest, I look for what's proven successful for others in creating characters that come to life. I've read many of those wonderful characters in books on this site.
I was reading Randy Ingermanson's "Advanced Fiction Writing E-zine" and came across this absolute gem, so I'll share it (it was concerning what makes Downton Abbey such a great series). But my question to you all is: What do you do to make your characters come to life?
Randy: "When you write your novel, it's tempting to bring in characters solely to serve the story of your protagonist. Characters who are there merely to play the role of Sidekick or Villain or Love Interest or Humorous Relief or whatever. Characters without their own hopes and dreams.
That is the road to second-rate fiction.
Give each character a dream. Preferably an impossible dream. Something your character will do anything to get. When a person will do anything to get what they want, then anything can happen. That's why Downton Abbey rocks. That's what will make your story rock too."
|
|
Joined: 11/17/2011
Posts: 1016
|
Hi Laura,
I do that which I believe you are generally advised not to do. My characters are all based on my own personality, to a greater or lesser degree. I don't have to get to know them. I am them.
My actors are every bit as quirky, neurotic, self-indulgent, hard to control and hard to pigeonhole as I am. My bemused (thank God!) husband will back me up on this.
I don't have to figure out who the numbskulls are. I simply tell their stories. And hope that they see fit to follow my script.
Live with your characters. They will begin to talk to you. Go from there. If you feel you have to bring them to life, you're doing it backwards. They must be alive to you. Then you write.
If there's a trick to it, I'd say that the trick is to care about them, every last loopy one of them. And let them be who they are. Bend them to your will at your peril.
Now, there's a downside to this. It's easy to lose your focus.
I am prone to go off on tangents in my work. Know what? I'm comfortable with my impromptu side-trips. I've decided that my free-floating plots serve my needs, even if they do temporarily confound.
Every hero, every villain, every one of your players has his or her reasons for every decision that he/she makes. Discover the motives and, whether you make use of it or not, the histories of your characters, and your stock figures will become recognizable, understandable human (or not - vampires shouldn't be caricatures either) beings.
Nor, dear hearts, should cats.
|
|
|
|
• I've discovered that I suck at character development.
Naa. It’s not that at all. It’s not a matter of good writing or bad, or even talent.
I looked the opening of, The Job. The problem is that you’re doing exactly what we all do when we start writing. You’re telling the story on an event-by-event basis. Fact about the scene follows fact, alternating with an explanation by the author as to why it happened. So, in the first line a woman we don’t know squeezes her husband’s hand for unknown reasons. We’re then told by the narrator that her voice would “give her away.” Forgetting everything about the story but that short opening. Look at the problems inherent to the structure.
1. The reader doesn’t yet know where we are, who we are, or what’s going on. Not knowing that, we have context for nothing. Ann, the protagonist, could be hiding in the dark forest, as Nazi soldiers (or zombies, or...) search for her. She could be in a doctor’s office awaiting the diagnosis of her son/husband/self. She could be in the reception line of her wedding, or at a funeral. All of those, and many more, fit the opening lines. And while you could say, “Keep reading and you’ll find out, mystery is fun. Confusion and ignorance aren’t, because nothing you might say, later, can retroactively remove it.
2. Look at a simple statement like, “give her away.” To a reader who has read only that she’s holding the husband’s hand this might mean that someone who shouldn’t, will know she’s there. It might mean to show her nervousness to the husband, or, someone else.
3. As presented, it’s a report, told by someone who is informing the reader of what they have just visualized happening. The reader hasn’t been given the situation or the actual image, only notice that the author visualized it. So the POV, if you can be said to have one, is yours, and we don’t know the character, other than as an externally described character. When you read it you already know the situation, and you have the proper image in your mind, just waiting to be evoked. But my head, as so many people are quick to point out, is empty. I don’t have that image so there’s nothing to be called up by knowing it's the proper time for it to appear.
So, while we know a hand was squeezed we don’t understand why. And knowing nothing about why the lady took her husband’s hand, or what she’s concerned about means we-don’t-know-Ann. But whose story is it?
Look at what happens when we change the approach to one in which we’re in the character’s, not the author’s head, and in which we know what’s motivating her to act:
- - - - - - - - - - -
Ann Conrad closed her eyes for a moment, trying to bring her roiling emotions under control before the doctor came through the door. It didn’t help so she turned to her husband.
“Jason?”
“Hmm?”
“I…” She took a shaky breath, then shook her head. Speech was impossible. Until the doctor said what he had to say everything was impossible.
Without thought her hand went to take his and squeeze, borrowing courage from him, loving the strength that radiated from him and brought stability. Thank God for you, Jason. Thank God. His smile, and the love that shown in his face said he understood.
- - - - - - - - - - -
Your characters and situation? No. It’s just a quick illustration of a more emotion based and character-centric approach.
Do we know what she’s there for? No. But we know that whatever it is, it has her rattled, and that she, at least thinks it critically important. Her husband may or may not feel as strongly, but he’s at least outwardly calm. We know she loves her husband, that in her perception he loves her, and that whatever the problem, she has his support. We know she doesn’t want to worry him, and that she’s an emotional person. We know what motivated her to speak, and why she didn’t continue. Had I changed her thought, so that she was thanking God for him, as a prayer I’d have just demonstrated that she’s a religious person, ad changed the reader's perception of her.
So, presented from her viewpoint we have context and specific character development. Now, we not only know what she said and did, we know her, and have reason to want to know what has her so rattled.
But, if all we know is factual detail, as mentioned by someone who isn’t on the scene, why do we care?
My point is that it’s not you, or some failure of talent or potential. You can learn how to get into the character’s viewpoint as easily as anyone else, because it’s not the art part of writing. It’s a matter of compositional tricks and technique—cookbook stuff, not magic, or a gift from a passing muse. Creativity—the thing that impels you to use the tools of the trade in interesting ways—is an unknown. You may be swimming in it or be desert dry. So what? There are lots of “no talent hacks” making a living through their writing. But they are making a living by it, while you and I aren’t. So obviously, they know something we don’t. They have skills we may not even know are required.
If you are swimming in talent it’s undirected talent, that hasn’t the tools it needs to turn hack writing into genius.
So either way, you need a more complete knowledge of the tools and techniques that work on the page.
Do you believe that reading, and talking with people like those on the site who also write, has the power to teach you what’s needed? Try this:
All your life you’ve been watching films, in theaters and as TV programs. Has it taught you to be a director or a screenwriter? That’s how well reading fiction prepares us to write it.
So, like all of us you love reading, and creating stories. You have the desire and the perseverance. You have everything you need but the tools that will turn your writing from a report into an explosion. You need to fit your dray horse—the general skill called writing—with wings. You need to be mounted on Pegasus.
Instead of telling your story as an external narrator, which leads to a dispassionate recounting of events, take your reader deep into the mind of the character, to know only what that character is actively focused on; to know only your character’s understanding of their world, filtered through their desires and needs. If we know what’s driving them, and what their moment-to-moment goals are, we know them. And if we know them we care. Why? Because they have character. ;–)
A great place to begin is with some of the basics:
http://www.be-a-better-writer.com/scenes-and-sequels.html
http://www.advancedfictionwriting.com/art/scene.php
The library’s fiction writing department can be a great resource. Personally, I’d look for the names, Debra Dixon, Dwight Swain, or Jack Bickham, in that order.
Sorry for the rant. What can I say? It’s how I’m made and I probably have too much time on my hands. Still, I hope this was of some help.
|
|
|
|
• I do that which I believe you are generally advised not to do. My
characters are all based on my own personality, to a greater or lesser
degree. I don't have to get to know them. I am them.
Not uncommon, but... Doesn't that mean every character will speak with your voice and have your POV? Why not give every character a unique vocabulary and quirks? Why not give them each different preconceptions, based on background, education and needs? Harder to keep track of, certainly, And making them all go in the same direction will be like herding cats, since each will have a different agenda and view of the situation. But isn't that life?
|
|
Joined: 11/17/2011
Posts: 1016
|
Thanks, Jay,
I am going to answer this point presently, in detail. My characters all contain a bit of me, but since I am an unholy mess of contradictions (are not we all?), they are not in lock-step in any way.
Okay, that's not quite right. They're all buffoons.
What I will say immediately is this: I have greatly admired your ability to analyze a piece of writing and pinpoint specific problems.
I admit that I value find-your-voice mysticism over logic, a channel-Vonnegut-or-whomever-and-the-magic-will-hopefully-resurrect approach which I insist works for me (I'm well aware that you do not agree), and which enriches the spirit of a piece, but which can't be nearly as useful as the nuts and bolts suggestions that you consistently offer.
I have investigated works you've commented on and tried to follow your arguments. I do my best to learn from you, and from a few others, while retaining my unique vision.
Here is the great good that Book Country has done for me: I have had to reassess my choices. My reviews, while critical, have convinced me more than ever that I am, for the most part, on the right track.
|
|
Joined: 8/13/2011
Posts: 272
|
For me, good characterization comes from all over the place. It's a gestalt kind of thing that only really works if all the pieces come together. One or two steps can make a character dance, but it's a mix of everything that really makes them live.
Here's a few things I find quite useful:
Names: Yes, really. Of course, no character really works if their names is 'hey, you' (though I have seen 'You B*stard' work before), but a good name works wonder for establishing someone's place in things. Contrast 'Bob' with 'Samuel Worthington-Smythe the Third'. Which one works best?
Troubles: There's no character who really has no problems, because then what are they trying to change. Anything can work as a trouble, whether it's a drive for justice at any cost, a love of the ladies or an inability to shut up around the powerful. The key to this is that it should present the characters with distractions and obstacles during the course of the story.
Passivity: In short, don't let your characters get passive. I can't count the number of reviews where I've said 'your characters are reacting, not acting'. People don't just sit in place, they act, they move, they advance their own personal stories every day. Try not to let the story drag your characters along, but make them shove it forwards.
Goals: Everyone's got somewhere they're going and the way they try and get there can often define them. Again, this can drive the story forwards in its own way,as well as pull at the characters. Having two conflicting goals often produces some interesting divisions in nominally allied characters.
Themes: This is a useful character creation tool, but it can also help you frame the characters in your head. Think of the themes of your story and then connect those themes to your characters. Say your story's about 'free will vs destiny', where do your characters fall in this? Is one convinced of his heroic destiny? Is another struggling against her lot in life? Has a third fled from the path put ahead of them? Asking these questions can give you additional elements that drive and push them.
Style: This sounds a bit ridiculous, but characters really stick with people if they're memorable about it. Try and give every character a certain schtick or obssession, which they return to over and over again, whether it's a standard complaint, a predictable off-stage activity or a specific verbal tic. One character I greatly enjoy constantly bangs on about his 'sacred right' to complain.
Some now that I've wittered on for an age, how about an example of what I'm talking about?
In one of the books I'm working on, I've got a goblin character called Gamra. Let's look at all the points I've raised above and work them down:
Name: Gamra. Firstly, she's one of two characters without a surname or similar (the other's a clanless dwarf, stripped of clan and caste). Secondly, I'm rigging all the names so each race has a different ending to their name ('s' for humans, 'en' for elves, 'ra' for goblins). It doesn't hurt that Gamra's a shortened version of Gamera, for all our Kaiju fans.
Troubles: Well, goblins are the slaves of the Orcs and she's an escaped slave. Second, the Orcs very nearly destroyed the human world, so goblins aren't exactly popular with them. Given that most of my cast is human, that's going to make her unpopular.
Passivity: Gamra's going to be curious, investigative and determined to change her people's destiny. If she's just going with the flow, I'll be surprised.
Goals: She wants to free her people from the Orcs. Given the Orcish nature and the rest of the cast, this'll be nigh on impossible. Won't stop her trying.
Themes: I want the story to have a lot of humanism versus cosmicism, as well as a lot of racial conflict (between the many species in the story) so having Gamra represent the 'enemy' lets me tell their side of the story. In addition, it's currently planned that Gamra's going to force one of the hardest decisions in the story.
Style: Gamra always speaks in the third person and in very simple sentences (eg: 'Gamra thinks your writing needs to improve'). This isn't because she's not smart, it's just her relative youth and inexperience with the language.
So there's my plans for the character. The important thing is that she's multi-faceted. There's stuff here about her relationship with the other characters, her motivations, how she's going to disrupt the plot and how she's going to behave.
So there's my two (hundred) cents. Some if it's probably not very useful, but hopefully some of it is.
|
|
|
|
• I admit that I value find-your-voice mysticism over logic,
But since “voice” is how we express ourself on the page, and includes our approach to point of view, how do we find those aspects of it that we don’t know exist without valuing education over guesswork? We can only ask questions about what we feel we don’t know. But it’s what we don’t know we don’t know that gets us.
You and I spent twelve years of our basic education acquiring the general skill we call writing. And that’s something meant for all adults and the kind of writing they do, which is nonfiction and not on a professional level. You practiced those compositional skills till it felt “intuitive.” And now, when you try any other style it feels unnatural.
You don’t argue that your teachers shouldn’t have tried to guide you into using the techniques you presently use, and you use those techniques as naturally as speaking. But how many of your teachers were successful novelists, and giving you the voice of experience? How many of the other students in your class, using those same techniques are successful novelists, today? If you all learned the techniques a fiction writer needs, the answer should be, “lots,” to both questions.
We took history in school, too. Are we a historian as a result? No. Did math make us a mathematician? Of course not. Are those writing skills you currently own going to be adequate should you decide to write a stageplay or screenplay? After all, you’ve been watching film scripts being performed all your life, just as you’ve been reading. So if reading and desire prepared you to write for the page, watching films and plays prepared you to use “mysticism over logic” in those fields, as well.
If talent is the key, and those with talent make it, you and I are screwed because we should have already made it. And in any case, there are lots of people we call no-talent hacks. So how do they do it? We equal them in desire and intent. So where did we go wrong?
Perhaps what we call writing talent is really a knack for learning and using the tools of the professional writer? Perhaps those we say have no talent are actually unimaginative but talented writers, and the best selling people are imaginative talented writers? In that case, not owning the proper tool set, and the knowledge of how they can be used puts your knack for using them at a disadvantage. Right?
“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
~ Mark Twain
Not trying to give you a hard time. My boots once stood in those same footprints, along with a whole lot of others.
Just saying…
|
|
Joined: 8/21/2011
Posts: 394
|
Timothy's post is extremely thorough and well worth filing away for future reference!
Bringing things down to the more mundane, I also think the little things of character development are important. Does the character prefer tea or coffee? Black or with a touch of milk? Favorite foods? Most hated foods? How does the character feel about getting caught in the rain? Would he/she rather be out camping or sitting at a sidewalk cafe in the middle of an urban setting? Is the character well-educated? Undereducated? Overly-educated? How does the character deal with being dirty (may sound trite, but I think it says a lot about a person if he/she can't stand getting his/her hands dirty!). Does the character have hobbies/passions outside of his/her work? Does he/she work? Does the character like/dislike animals? Is the character afraid of heights? Afraid of water? Afraid of spiders? Afraid of flying? Can the character dance or is he/she hopeless on the dance floor? (Or is the character hopeless on the dance floor, but thinks he/she can dance?).
And so on. Each character is a person - even the minor ones. Every person has likes and dislikes, skills, faults, hopes, dreams, passions. Give each character some of these, and you breathe some life into them.
For the record: tea with milk; sitting at an outdoor cafe in an urban setting; don't mind getting my hands dirty. 
|
|
Joined: 8/13/2011
Posts: 272
|
I couldn't agree more with you Angela (and no that's not just for the compliment). The little details of a character can often define them (it's what I meant in the style vein above) and they also have a tendency to reflect deeper currents in a character. A lot of our choices can reflect old prejudices that we barely remember.
As an aside, all that talk of coffee reminds me of a great scene in something I read recent: two antagonists negotiating at a cafe. At first they order drinks. One orders coffee, the other tea. The first few lines of their conversation? Insulting each other over their tastes in drinks. Brilliant at defining just how similar they are, while also demonstrating their differences.
|
|
Joined: 1/10/2012
Posts: 192
|
Thank you all for weighing in. I guess I should clarify on my statement above that I suck at character development. It's more complex than that. It's the little things like Angela said. It's some of those issues/items that Timothy raised (and I'm working on those!) that make characters compelling. Anyone, I suppose, could "create" a character, but it's those things that make us fall in love or hate with them, make us pull for them or damn them, make us want to read eight more books about them... or throw the book down after ten pages and never crack it again. Plot is, of course, crucial, but so are your characters that move it. And I'm feeling a lot of pressure. So thank you for the info, and please keep it coming!
|
|
|
|
• Plot is, of course, crucial, but so are your characters that move it.
Can't agree. The average person makes a decision to buy or reject a given book in three pages or less. Damn little plot in three pages. Damn little character development, too. Good writing? Yup, there is time for that.
Plot? There are only seven basic plots. Every romance novel is pretty much: Boy finds girl. Boy loses girl. Boy gets girl. All else is embellishment, yet half the fiction sold is romance.
Mysteries are solved. And at its core, any story is about someone who has been forced out of their comfort zone and is trying to get back to it. Simple stuff.
Bad writers will crap up the best plot, while good ones can make you weep with a tale of taking out the garbage.
Written well any story is a good read.
It's about the writing. It's always about the writing.
|
|
Joined: 11/17/2011
Posts: 1016
|
I have to jump in here. I agree wholeheartedly with Jay.
When I pick up a book, I sample, first page, near the end, in the middle. I give it three or four chances to seduce me. I have a title to tempt me, and a few impressions of the quality of the writing, more than enough to make a snap judgement.
I tend to reach for things I've never heard of, so I don't choose on the basis of author, or of genre. It's always the writing that hooks me. There are mighty few jackets with come-ons to guide me on those mystery-meat grabs. I operate on instinct.
And I'm seldom disappointed. I'm never pissed-off that I've squandered my money, since most of what I buy comes from the annual library book sales. I don't worry about wasting my time, because the grace of the prose is a joy in itself even when the plot is melodramatic mush.
I go for the old-time stuff, full of glorious description. Even, sorry, can't recall his name at the moment, a certain nobody second-rate Victorian writer, according to Wikipedia, wrote thrillingly.
You can afford to take a lot of chances when the price is fifty cents or a dollar. And you find treasures you never knew existed.
Jay, I'm working on a longish piece meant especially for you. Keep your eye on this spot.
|
|
Joined: 3/12/2011
Posts: 376
|
"Perhaps what we call writing talent is really a knack for learning and using the tools of the professional writer."
Since ideas happen as a natural result of the process of writing, and they are, at best, undeveloped land on which to build our next narrative structure, I think I have to agree completely with this one. Honestly, I'd say it goes beyond 'writing' into the very concept of 'talent' itself.
As for characterization, do everything that's been listed here, then remember one important fact. You have done your homework, but no one wants to see that. It will show through when you need it, but don't feel a need to *tell* everyone whether your character prefers coffee or tea. You know, and when the time is right you'll have it to write, but don't force your research into the story where it doesn't belong.
|
|
Joined: 11/17/2011
Posts: 1016
|
Jay, and all,
I had thought that fiction writing was simple.
First, I believed, you have something to say, an idea, and a few plot points. You either flesh them out in advance or you do it on the fly, a messier approach. Next, you have a facility with language that enables you to communicate clearly. And you understand, or at least you have a grasp of what you need to do to tell your story in an engrossing manner. Your goal, after all, is to entertain.
Maybe you're really good. You've learned to manipulate language skillfully, you do wheelies with it. You begin to question conventional wisdom. Why must B follow A? Would the thing fall apart if it were the other way around? At this point, I say you're allowed to play.
Maybe you're leading a Magical Mystery Tour, in which case you might insist on standing your ground with your quirky methods. A risky posture, for sure.
Laura asks a general question: how do you create characters who come to life? You and I jump on it. This is a topic that pushes our buttons. You advise, Learn the Rules. I sermonize, Figure out who your puppets are before you jerk them this way or that. You assume she understands her critters, but isn't putting it across. I am convinced she has focused on plot, and has given short shrift to personalities.
You, at least, have read her work. You see specific problems and offer concrete solutions, while I, without a glance at it - though I intend to read it - simply say, Go deeper, make it real. That's helpful, isn't it? I'm an ass, I admit it.
You tout a tool box of fixes. Fair enough, for your scenario. In mine, a failure of characterization is a failure of conception. Characterization created in service to a plot may seem to work, for a while. Until it doesn't, from a lack of depth.
What makes your character tick? What does he obsess about at two in the morning when he can't sleep? Maybe this stuff doesn't propel a plot, but the plot prospers on it, nonetheless.
A writer doesn't see problems in his approach, or he wouldn't have gone that route. (I am exhibit A. See my reviews.) I've got a boatload of trouble, but my foundational flaw is that I believe that I have more leeway to screw around than others do. I've given myself permission to be outrageous. I'm writing off-the-wall fantasy, for Chrissake.
Jay, when you say tools, I hear rules. I hate rules! Sure, they might keep you from running off the road. They also keep you on a heavily-traveled interstate instead of on a more interesting detour. Am I kidding myself?
I don't know what the tools of the professional writer are. Seriously. I've had no formal instruction in writing since high school, save for one freshman class in art school. I have a sense of what's in, what's out, thanks to Book Country. I know that my style, Way Too Much Information teamed (a double whammy) with Anything Goes, is despised.
I imagine that if I were to write a contemporary crime caper, my approach would be much more disciplined. Then again, maybe not. I'd still be inclined to exploit whatever pops into my head. Nonlinear, it's the way I think.
Randy Ingermanson says, Style is a matter of taste. I've had no great feedback on my style, as set forth in chapter two and beyond, after my action gets going. My intuition tells me that BC folks like it no better than the organizational disaster of chapter one.
The thing about Ingermanson's conflict-resolution, struggle-victory, keep-the-story-moving exhortations is, where does that leave room for the frivolous rumination (ultimately useful, but my reader has no way of knowing it) that Sly indulges in, endlessly? That one-two punch of Motivation-Reaction Units? Not for me. I like to let my conflict simmer over a slow heat. I don't rush anything. Another of my unpopular choices.
Ingermanson again: Your Scene cannot afford charity for a single sentence that is not pulling its weight. And the only parts of your scene that pull their weight are the MRUs. All else is fluff.
Most of Sly is fluff! Man! I'm in deep shit! I'm clearly writing in another dimension. I've squeezed through a worm hole. Or down a rabbit hole.
Ah! Great fiction is character-driven. Finally something I can agree with. Charts, spreadsheets, anal scene by scene analysis? I'll live or die by the happy accident.
Insecure (got to nail the booger down) I am not.
Am I delusional, then? Quite likely.
In the immortal words, or the immortal word, of Dick Cheney: So?
|
|
Joined: 8/13/2011
Posts: 272
|
To be honest, I have to agree with Mimi here. While this discussion seems to have wandered away from its theme a bit, I really don't have a lot of truck with 'da rules'.
Why? Simply because I've never seen any indications that these are anything more than the easy road. Take the 'rule' that 'your first page has got to rock'. Yes, it does, if you want people to read what you've written, but, so's everything else. I've read books with solid openings and absolutely appalling follow-ups. I've read other stuff where it's started slow, but the ending's kicked every kind of ass. That rule's in place because it's a standard approach, not because it's a rule of nature, nothing more.
To be honest the only rules I reckon are worth following are the rules of grammar and that's not because those are 'da rules'. I stick to the rules of grammar and preach them when reviewing because it makes it easier on the reader. I've never written anything because I wanted my readers to decode what I was writing. If I ever have an idea which runs on that, then I'll start to futz around, but not before.
The best advice I've heard on the creative process has to be Neil Gaiman's commencement speech a few weeks ago. I'm just paraphrasing from memory (and thus gotten it wrong), but his main theme was: 'the rules were written by people who never wondered what happened when you went beyond them' and I really can't argue with that. How do you know they're right until you've seen how badly things go wrong without them?
As to making your characters pop, I think one trick is to keep cycling round to their character aspects, but come at them from different angles. If your character is a coward, keep returning to their justifications for their cowardice (either defending their running or their reasons not to be there in the first place). By repeatedly hitting these central elements, you can expand not just on who they say they are, but who they really are, underneath all the daily lies.
|
|
Joined: 11/17/2011
Posts: 1016
|
Timothy,
You sound like you are on the ball! I am definitely going to read your work.
My intrusive authorial voice, a device which seems to be very much out of favor (from what I read on the web), serves the same function. I let my critters put their spin on events, then I butt in, to set my reader straight.
Does it work? I've shoved my thing aside for three months. I hope the down time has given me a measure of objectivity. I'll reread and let you know, in Progress Report.
|
|
|
|
• You tout a tool box of fixes.
I can’t agree. If you try to build your house without tools or knowledge of the tools you do have you’re going to end up with a lean-to when you envision a palace. And no amount of fixes will make one into the other. What I’m saying is that in order for our story to be what we want it to be we have to understand the process we’re attempting to duplicate and the tools that are available. We can’t use the tool we don’t know exists, no matter how heartfelt and sincere our effort is.
It’s tempting to declare writing an art, and believe that it will just come to us because we’re pure of heart, and deserving. But is there any other profession where the practitioners simply feel the urge to produce the product and then do it well enough that others will pay money to buy it? I certainly don’t know any. Are there any, where simply being a consumer makes us equal to the pros at producing the product? Hell, if reading made us writers we should be cranking out successful TV scripts, because we’ve been enjoying that all our lives. An if it was a matter of intent and sincerity the tens of thousands posting their work on the various writing sites would be selling their work.
• What makes your character tick? What does he obsess about at two in the morning when he can't sleep?
Who cares? The reader certainly doesn’t. We can’t give the reader even a fraction of the character’s complexity and the reader isn’t really interested in getting to know them. They want something far simpler: They want someone who seems real as they live the story. And that’s it. They come to us for story, not history. If the story causes the character to show many characteristics, that’s great. But it’s the moment-to-moment reading pleasure that keeps the reader glued to the book. They must be made to want to know what comes next—be saying, “Tell me more,” not “Uh-huh.” Someone has a problem and that problem needs solving immediately, with our help. There’s our focus—the struggle and the objective. The character is driven to succeed and we cheer him/her on. To continue that, the character must be interesting enough to make us create an emotional bond with him/her. Their character needs to be consistent and in most cases admirable enough that we feel we wish we could be like them.
But we don’t care that the character obsesses late at night unless the obsession directly relates to the action in progress.
• I've given myself permission to be outrageous.
I’ve given myself permission to be great. Now if only ability came with permission.
Here’s the problem. If the reader isn’t motivated to turn to page two does it matter how outrageous the story is? Most rejections come on page one, unfortunately, often before the end of the second paragraph. If you can motivate them to read to page three, they’re going to at least ask to see the rest. And how much does the reader know about the character by page four? Damn little. They only know that the character seems interesting, based on what amounts to a snap judgment. And that’s the result of writing skill, not knowing the character to any depth.
• Jay, when you say tools, I hear rules.
Some tools do come with rules. Grammar is one. No one says you have to follow them, but ignoring them through ignorance seems foolish. Many aspects of writing have certain expected structural aspects. Editors will reject anyone who ignores them. Do we write nasty letters to the editor telling them they’re being unfair? Or do we say, “The customer is always right,” and give them what they want?
Your grade teachers graded you based on how well you used the compositional skills you were given. After twelve years of that we forget how hard we worked to learn them and make them part of our normal writing technique. They’re tools. Do you refuse to use them because you think of them as rules? Is it reasonable to expect there to be no additions and modifications to that basic set when we write stories instead of reports? Were those we have adequate, wouldn’t most new writers be high schoolers.
• I don't know what the tools of the professional writer are.
Yet you hope your work will appear professional to readers. You’re using called the “think” method, developed by the famous, Professor Harold Hill.
Here’s the thing. You can use any tool in any way you see fit. Sculptors learn to use the same basic tool set. Yet they create unique art, because creativity is what you do with what you have. And if you have nothing… Can you really think of yourself as a serious writer if you invest less than the cost of a fun weekend, and a bit of study time, in becoming a writer?
• Randy Ingermanson says, Style is a matter of taste.
Absolutely. Style is how you use the tools—assuming you own any. Your statues would be very different from mine. But given what I know of the techniques and available tools of the sculptor, my style would be to make gravel out of a block of marble.
• The thing about Ingermanson's conflict-resolution, struggle-victory, keep-the-story-moving exhortations is, where does that leave room for the frivolous rumination (ultimately useful, but my reader has no way of knowing it)
You forget that the reader will probably forget by that time. Your reader may only pick up the story as they eat lunch, so by the time they get to where the information is necessary it will long be out of their head. And moreover, since they have only twenty minutes in which to read they want it exciting.
People read in the now. They want to know what’s happening, not what happened, or the character’s philosophy. We read for entertainment and release. We want to have reason to worry.
Dwight Swain reports that his editor once said he wanted 25,00 words a month, in one story. According to Swain he said he wanted something like:
“A group of people are stuck in a hilltop castle with a violent storm raging, the power out, the roof threatening to cave in, and, corpses falling down the stairs and hanging in the attic. Boards are creaking under somebody’s weight in the dark. Can that be the killer? There are flashes of lightening illuminating the face of the murderer—only the son-of-a-bitch is wearing a mask that makes it look even more horrible.
“And finally, the girl has been given into the safekeeping of the only person who is absolutely not the killer—only he turns out to be the killer, or course. But he’s taken the girl somewhere were no one can save her. And you damn well know he’s raping her while everyone stands around helpless.
“Do these stories in the style the old Edgar Rice Burroughs used to use…you know, you take one set of characters and carry them along for a chapter, putting them into a position at the end of the chapter that nothing can save them. Then take another set of characters, rescue them from their dilemma, carry them to a hell of a problem at the end of the chapter. Then switch back to the first set of characters and rescue them from their deadly peril. Carry them along to the end of the chapter, where once again they are seemingly doomed. Then rescue the second set of characters, and so on.
“Don’t give the reader a chance to breathe. Keep him on the edge of his God-damned chair all the way through!
“To hell with clues and smart dialog, and characterization. Don’t worry about corn. Give me pace and bang-bang. Make me breathless.”
Now agreed, he wanted adventure stories. But the approach applies to any kind of story. Readers want excitement not introspection. They respond to deadlines and bodies dropping through the ceiling more then they do angst.
|
|
Joined: 5/22/2012
Posts: 4
|
I'm extremely left-brained when it comes to pre-writing, and I have a four-page character sheet I create for each of my central characters. I look at my protagonist, and if a character shows up on my protag's character sheet, then I feel they deserve their own as well.
I find it's absolutely vital to nail down every central character's goals, motivations and conflict. Even though the protag should be the most compelling story, every character should have their own story occurring in parallel.
I like to give each character a "wound that will not heal." I believe I originally got this advice from one of Orson Scott Card's writing texts, and it's suited me well. I feel that flaws and insecurities give characters depth, but only if they're believable and something the reader can relate to.
|
|
Joined: 11/17/2011
Posts: 1016
|
Jay,
You may be wondering why I can't let go of my railing against reasonable advice. For I agree that logic in a piece, driving the nonsense if not front and center, is essential. And that guidelines and techniques can be helpful.
I've taken a break from my thing. I'm working up my energy for a new offensive. Before I do any fix-it work, I need to decide if my approach has a chance in hell of bucking the tide of current thinking and, more importantly, if it works, period.
I'm going to make a list. What do I hands-down believe and refuse to alter? What positions am I prepared to abandon? What am I up in the air about?
I have stacks of books waiting to be read. I've sampled them in order to decide what to tackle first. Most of them are closer in spirit to my impulses than to yours. They're my taste in literature, naturally. That's why I bought them.
None of them is likely to embody that one-two formula that, thanks to you, I've just read about. If I turn out to be wrong, I'll let you know.
Every one of them has a back cover full of astonishing recommendations, and frequent mentions of prizes won. I have paid (as I seldom do) far more than a dollar or two for what I expect to be an enjoyable and educational experience. And I have attempted to buy myself some courage with a confirmation that I am not a lone nut.
It's the mind-set of a madman to devote thirty years to a project that has no chance of any sort of success. So I (lately, anyway) spend as much time justifying my choices as I do in pushing my misadventure to a conclusion.
That's it in a nutshell.
I have a lot of work to do.
|
|
|
|
• I have stacks of books waiting to be read. I've sampled them in order to decide what to tackle first. Most of them are closer in spirit to my impulses than to yours. They're my taste in literature, naturally. That's why I bought them.
I bought lots of food home from my favorite restaurants. It’s the kind I like. And I hope by eating, I’ll learn the secrets of the great chef who created them.
You don’t want the books, you want the manuscripts leading up to the final story, so you can see why certain things were done—and of more importance, not done. None of the thongs the author rejected appear, so how does that help you when the thing that author left out look attractive and sound reasonable to you?
Here’s a challenge: In my blog I have a story, deconstructed, with the reasons I did various things—and what I hoped they would accomplish. It’s not great fiction, and could use a bit of editing, but it did get me a contract and it was published, so in the eyes of at least that editor, I accomplished what I set out to do.
I list the reasons why things were done, at the end, keyed to numbers in the text. As you read, will you know why I did each of the things I did? If the answer to any one of them is no, and the section did accomplish its objective, it’s an illustration of what you won’t get by reading your favorite style writing.
• None of them is likely to embody that one-two formula that, thanks to you, I've just read about. If I turn out to be wrong, I'll let you know.
If they don’t, you might compare them against the method used in a pure narration section, that I talk about under the heading, “On Exposition,” here: http://jaygreenstein.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/the-beginners-corner/
It’ about half way down
The motivation/response technique will show up in those stories, though, because it’s what drives dialog (or at least dialog that reads as real). Each person’s dialog is the motivation that drives the other to speak.
And with that I'll bid everyone a five day farewell. Tomorrow I'm off to Daniel Boone Homestead to help with a scout encampment till Sunday. Then on Monday they slash my wrist open to fix my carpel tunnel.
Fun and terror, but I'm not quite certain of which fits which event. Though the water balloon launchers promise to be fun.
|
|
Joined: 11/17/2011
Posts: 1016
|
Thank you so much for the links. I will certainly check them out. And good luck with the surgery.
And, thanks for not telling me to stop whining and get to work, which is what I deserve. You are so patient!
|
|
Joined: 8/21/2011
Posts: 394
|
Good luck with the surgery, Jay! (And with the scouts!)
|
|
|
|
Luck to Ye, Jay, with the carpel tunnel surgery. Please let us know how it turns out.
|
|
Joined: 1/10/2012
Posts: 192
|
Okay, guys, can I wrangle this discussion back in?
Jay, good luck with your surgery.
Back to the topic, though. Please feel free to share what kind of things you do or have read about doing that make characters come alive. I posted something Randy Ingermanson had in his magazine that really brought some clarity and purpose to my WIPs. Have you read anything like that? Something that maybe struck you as a, "Why the hell wasn't I thinking of that?! Of course!"
Please share!
|
|
|
|
Hmmm, I feel a character is alive when I know someone like them. That is why I pull my characters from myself or people I know. Once started, a character must then remain true to the model personality I had in mind. They are written with a feeling, "How would he or she respond to this."
Main characters must grow with the story. When I put them in a situation neither I nor anyone I know has been in, I sometimes have to reverse my thinking and ask, "How would this affect him or her." But the original model is always central.
No doubt there are better ways or scenes where this approach cannot work, but I seem to define "a live character" as someone I can relate to. So I have them think, speak and act like characters I have known in real life.
|
|
Joined: 11/17/2011
Posts: 1016
|
GD, all,
Your approach is similar to an idea I had for an exercise: Take a scene from one of your books.
Re-imagine your character, based on someone you know very well, your sister, your best friend. With the wealth of personal, specific detail you have at your fingertips, how is the characterization enriched?
|
|
|
|
What an excellent idea, Mimi! Thanks
|
|
Joined: 6/14/2012
Posts: 194
|
Laura, I'm going to drag in the concept of Theory of Mind, for moment, because a character's motivation is what makes the character's behavior make sense. To write complex characters, you have to convey not only what they did, but why they did it (and not by saying "John shot the deer. He shot the deer because his father was an avid hunter, but a harsh father, who opened up to his son only on the annual deer-hunting trip, and complimented only a straight shot." Even if that's the underlying reason John, Jr. is still hunting every year, though he thinks he hates his father's memory.)
For the motivations you write to make sense, you need an understanding of the motivations of real people. You need to be able to imagine what it's like to be that other person...see things from their viewpoint, physically and emotionally. It's called having Theory of Mind. (I didn't make up the name and I think it's a stupid label, but it's in use.)
Most of us think we're good at that. Most people suck at that. (It's commonly said that autistic persons "have no Theory of Mind" with the implication that everyone else does, but both the statement and the implication are wrong.) You've probably been told you did something for a reason you know (but couldn't convince the other person) is not the real reason. "You spilled that on purpose!" "You wanted me to fail!" We impute motive to others, and then react to them on the basis of the motives we impute--and often those motives are wrong. Even with those we love and are close to, we make these mistakes, though in lesser degree.
But a writer must know more about human nature--about human motivation and what shapes it, and how the vector calculus of competing motivations affects behavior--in order to write characters who feel real to readers. Characters readers talk about as if they were real people.
So a writer's first task is learning people: listening to them, watching them, interacting with them, reading about them across a range of fields...and then imagining what would make someone act like that. How many different paths to shooting a deer are there? How many reasons can someone have for quitting a job? How does culture influence the motivations and overt behavior of an individual in standard situations? What are the predictable effects on behavior of illness, exhaustion, injury?
Writers can, indeed, use themselves as lab rats to explore innards--but one specimen really isn't enough, unless you want to write one navel-gazing book after another. Humans are too varied...and they are the raw material of fiction. So if people don't fascinate you--if you can't people-watch (and listen) in airport terminals, restaurants, libraries, classrooms, cube farms, playgrounds--then you're going to have a really rough time writing books with interesting people in them.
Not all the research has to be in the field...read history, anthropology, psychology (and not just abnormal psychology--child development, cognitive psychology and cognitive anthropology), neurology (OK, maybe not necessary, but the more you know about the human data processing system--sensory systems that are every bit as much garbage-in/garbage-out as silicon systems--the more nuanced your characters can be.), sociology, even pop-psych articles in magazines (you don't have to believe them; you do need to know what your readers have been told.)
As you learn more about people--and yourself as a test object--as their behavior makes more sense (whether you like what they did or not)--you'll be able to use these insights in your writing. You won't be pushing markers around a plot maze...you'll always have a motivation or seven in play. (And you now know a lot of ways to have characters misunderstand one another that readers can believe--it's a Theory of Mind thing.)
|
|
|
|
This is me being silly because I'm fatigued and having a bad ADHD day ...
But I throw my characters on the ground and perform rigorous CPR. Seems to help.
|
|
Joined: 6/28/2011
Posts: 188
|
Thanks for resurrecting this thread, Mari. I missed it the first time around, and it's a great topic.
One of my tricks is to give every character some detail that I myself am curious about. Then I have the option of either letting the other characters be curious about it, or letting the other characters know all there is to know, which then makes me curious how they found out something I don't know.
An example:
In one of my books, the narrator early on teases another character by telling him, "What a cute child you must have been. Did your parents tell all their friends how precocious you were?" Instead of just saying yes or no, the other character responds with a cool smile and the words, "Now, I've told you before that I don't talk about my parents."
At the point that I wrote that, I had no idea why he refused to talk about his parents, but it immediately gave him an implied backstory, and because of the way the two characters continued their banter, it was clear that the narrator wanted to know more about this mysterious backstory as well, but knew better than to push the issue. In just a few lines, the one character suddenly became someone with a more intriguing past, and the tenor of the relationship between the two characters became more nuanced and real.
In some cases, I never get around to revealing whatever secret it is that a character has. Sometimes, I don't even know what it is myself, in more than a vague way (particularly with minor characters who make only an appearance or two in the story). The point is that as long as the characters are larger than I myself understand, it gives me room and motivation to explore them as the story moves forward, and hopefully keeps the reader as interested in learning more about them as I am.
|
|
|
|
Thanks, Herb. That's interesting.
|
|
Joined: 1/10/2012
Posts: 192
|
Great feedback, everyone! And Elizabeth, thank you for the very in-depth answer. I love to people watch and observe body language, so I plan to rely heavily on what people DO and do not SAY. At least until I know more about what they THINK. I'd like to say I'm really good at reading between the lines, but as you so eloquently said, sometimes we project our own reasons on others, and incorrectly so. So thanks!
|
|
Joined: 3/16/2011
Posts: 279
|
Before I put my pen to paper, I try to figure out the history of the character in question. Yes, I'll have a basic personality in mind, but to figure out -who- they are, I look to their past.
For example: I have a MFC who is career driven, constantly on the move, and a perfectionist. Almost good enough is not what she wants.
When I created her history I made her an only child and added a twist. She had a little sister who died as an infant when the MFC was four. As a little girl, she didn't understand what was going on, except that the only thing that seemed to make things better was when she did something good. It made her parents smile. This laid the groundwork for the close relationship with her parents, her drive to please them, and how much emotional power they had over her.
This doesn't make it into the book. I think there is a brief mention that she had a little sister who died young, but it is not a core part of the story or important to the reader. It was important to me so I can understand how she will react to little things.
I do a lot of traveling and when I'm on the road I encounter different situations. If I'm stuck in traffic, or witnessing two drunk guys brawling in a bar, I try to put my characters into my place. How would they react at being cut off in rush hour traffic? Would they get out of the way of the fight or try to break it up?
I try to give every character I write for a quirk. We all have them, it's that little thing that makes your friends laugh and say, "That is SO Laura!" Is the person a germ phobe? Religiously washing hands, flinching away from a cough and always keeping a packet of sanitizer on hand can lighten a scene. One of my MFC writes everything in a daily planner. Everything.
When in doubt, go back to the history. If you're looking for character development this is where you'll find a lot of fodder to work with. Did your character have a parent who hopped from partner to partner and never settled down? He/she may not put a lot of stock in love/relationships after seeing mum or dad burn through them like a pack of cigarettes.
|
|
Joined: 1/10/2012
Posts: 192
|
All great ideas, Danielle! History is absolutely vital, even if it doesn't make it into the story. Thanks for reminding me of that fact.
|
|
Joined: 1/10/2012
Posts: 192
|
INC, I absolutely agree. For me, the struggle is with creating inhuman characters who exhibit some humanistic traits. So while they don't have "hobbies," per se, they need to act human in their off-time, I guess.
Strange - I never gave much thought to humans  or how they process and react to things until I started writing. So complicated!
|
|
|
|
One thing we did on the Nano boards last year was a thread called "What's in your character's purse?" (handbag, backpack, pocket, etc) I also did "How does your character take his coffee?" (tea, etc)
|
|
Joined: 10/14/2012
Posts: 229
|
Hey Mari
For some reason, that makes absolute, perfect sense.
Don't even have to think about it!
|
|
|
|
Since I'm writing teenagers, I went for the "what's in your backpack" and "what's in your locker" angles.
|
|
Joined: 4/4/2013
Posts: 18
|
A suggestion - David Corbett - The Art of Character. It changed the way I view character development. Totally. I'm still working on it, but I now feel that I have a glimmer of understanding.
|
|
|
|