posted
What are some ways I can help the reader really feel what my character is feeling?
Any good books that explain/clarify a little?
Sometimes, when I think I've got a good section where I think the reader should be able to feel what's going on....it doesn't work. And I don't know why!
Other times, I don't put any conscious effort into a character's emotions and my friends say 'Wow! That was powerful!' And I still don't know why! *chuckle*
So I'm curious how everyone else helps their readers to get emotionally attached to the characters and be able to feel what they are feeling?
posted
I learned something this summer at boot camp that really helped me put more emotion into my work...something I had been doing wrong for a long time.
ATTITUDE NOT EMOTION
Let me see if I can drum up an example.
"Who's there?" Megan said fearfully. She squinted her eyes against the darkness but saw nothing. Perhaps she had imagined it. She moved forward slowly, but stopped dead as she detected the movement again.
vs.
"Who's there?" Megan's heart raced as she squinted her eyes against the darkness. She had been a fool for taking this short cut. Now it was dark and who knew what was out there in the dark; probably a thief or murderer waiting to pounce. She moved forward slowly, but stopped dead as she detected the movement again.
I don't know if these examples helped illustrate my point or not...it's difficult to isolate the point. The point is that in the second version we're not having Megan's EMOTIONS shoved in our faces. In fact, I never even say she's afraid. You know she is because her heart is racing and she's got all kinds of horrible thoughts racing through her head.
The trick to getting readers to feel the emotion in your work is to be there, in the moment, showing what the point of view character is seeing and thinking, not so much what they're feeling. Let the reader feel the emotion, not read about it. If your main character is afraid and you say so, then the reader doesn't have to do the work of being afraid anymore.
Did that make any sense or do I have to try to find another way or explaining?
posted
I agree with Christine, though I don't think her examples really did it justice. (good effort though!)
What I mean is exactly what she said before, Attitude vs Emotion
Attitude Writing = Real Emotional Writing = Melodrama and Sap
One of the best ways for a reader to get in touch with a character is to understand and know the character's attitude. It doesn't mean that all of your well-developed characters must be incessent extroverts, but it does mean their personality is evident and unique. Therefore "real,"
The best way to do this, I think, is simply to write in strong POV. But that's me.
[This message has been edited by Alias (edited February 25, 2004).]
posted
I think I understand. In order to let your readers care about your character you need to make the character 'real' enough for them to believe. Once they believe they'll get to know the character's attitude by how the character responds to different situations. How they think and react, leaving emotions out of it. The emotions will take care of themselves if you've done a good job of building and introducing your character...
posted
I have one theory when it comes to any kind of character development, which I actually went into a little bit in another thread. There's a good chance this isn't a unique thought, but it's the way I see things. When you're developing characters (which your question has a lot to do with) do it the way you get to know people in real life. In real life, there's no voice speaking to you, saying, "Okay, now she's getting scared," or, "That guy is angry," or, "Man, she really wants you." Those are just labels your own mind puts on people's reactions based on your observations. You hear her breath quicken and see her eyes widen and her movements get erratic, so your mind connects her behavior with what you've experienced as fear and decides, "she's scared." You see him clench his jaw shut and a vein on the side of his head stands out, and he screams and puts his fist through a window, so your mind decides, "he's angry." You notice that she laughs at all your jokes a little too much, whether they're funny or not, and she keeps finding reasons to touch you, sits really close to you, even though there's plenty of room on the couch, so your mind decides, "she wants me."
My point is, if you let your readers get to know your characters the same way they get to know people in real life, through seeing how they behave and then drawing their own conclusions, the characters feel more real. We have some advantages in books that we don't have in real life, like the ability to learn what a character is thinking, but the principle generally holds true.
[This message has been edited by wetwilly (edited February 25, 2004).]
posted
Christine's example WAS great, but you can take the same material and put another spin on it.
Saying that the character is scared is one thing . . . showing is another. How do we, as writers, show? By actions and thoughts. The second example showed the thoughts that her fear gave her. It showed her physical reactions.
This puts the reader almost in a "it's me" type perspective. The character exhibits the thoughts and carries out the actions of the fear, but the character doesn't feel the fear, the READER feels it for the character.
Your job as a writer is to set up the emotions, not to tell them. Let the "action speak louder than words".
posted
Show don't tell, and don't fall into the trap of showing then telling or telling then showing.
Many writers do that--they say Sam was scared, his heart pounded etc., as if the reader needs to be told what they are about to be shown because they may not get it otherwise. Or the other way around.
Always do your best to show what is happening to the character, not just tell the reader about it.
If I read that Sam is angry--yeah so. But if I know he smashed his fist into a mirror and then kicked his cat--well, I know he is angry--very angry. If he tossed the balled up phone disconnect bill in the trash and stalked out the door to pay the bill. Well, I know he is angry but not as angry as when he smashed the mirror.
By showing the character's feelings vs telling them the reader knows exactly what is going on and can better identify with the character.
posted
It does seem to come down to show, don't tell... While reading you tend to exhibit whatever you read, unless what you're reading is distracting and you are conscious that you ARE reading something. I mean, if you keep a reader involved in the story as you should, then you should always go for showing how a person is feeling, so that the reader can exhibit that him/her-self.
And, I like srhowen's point about either show or tell, but dont tell then show or vice versa. When you do that, it's tedious reading and may distract the reader from the story.
Ok this is one my absolute pet peeves of writing advice, it is so hazy to say, "show don't tell," so much that I hate hearing it. What it generally does is make teh writer bog down a story with far too much description, disrupt or destroy flow, and create future problems.
A line could read, "Harold had lost the battle. When he got shot he fell over into unconsciousness."
The becomes, "The blue-green catlike moon ascended over the dust-speckled mountains. Their exhuberent purple hues were magnificent against the red-blossoming sky. Harold, a tall man, about six feet 3 inches, with dark hair that tossled lightly down his face, was drenched in sweat from the intense battle. He ran a comb-like finger across his blistering hot forehead, his fingers gently pushing the hair strands away, he was thinning young. As his gun erupted in a fiery explosion and sound beat upon his eardrums like a booming drum he saw red sparks fly.........."
All of that and we still didn't even say as much as we had in the passage before. Granted the one before has some serious flws too, but at least it doesn't slow the pace of an action scene to appear as if its in slow-motion.
I think it is much clearer to tell people, "write inside POV," (instead of telling them "show don't tell,") and it makes for an overall better read.
quote:and don't fall into the trap of showing then telling or telling then showing.
But this is good advise.
Posts: 295 | Registered: May 2003
|
posted
Actually, when it comes to having your readers feel emotion, show don't tell is good advice, but a cautionary note must be attached, as Alias has pointed out.
Sometimes in writing you should tell. You tell when it isn't that important, when you need to move on, or when no one frankly cares but it has to be said. You tell when showing would slow down the work to a snail's pace and interrupt flow.
But you show when it's important, when you need to feel the emotion. That's why I didn't phrase my advice as "show don't tell" because I've read in writing books that this advice is misleading and confusing. But it is true in terms of the question, "What are some ways I can help the reader really feel what my character is feeling?"
quote:Alias - I think that your example is more an idea of bad description
You'd damn well better! lol, I worked hard to make it the most ridiculous, unnecessary, poorly-flowing piece of rubbish that I could!
quote:- and you're still telling
What?
quote:Jim was six foot three. Tell
Jim towered above them. Show
OK
quote:Jim had greasy blonde hair. Tell'
Jim ran his hand through his greasy blonde hair. Show
Pause.
"Jim had greasy blonde hair," is a "tell," according to you, but, "Jim towered above them," is a show?
I think they're equal, however you want to classify them.
But as for me if something is positively dripping with unnecesary adjectives, that is being unwantingly descriptive, and that is the side-effect most associated with amateur writers, like us, trying to "show" and not, "tell,"
quote:Other times, I don't put any conscious effort into a character's emotions and my friends say 'Wow! That was powerful!' And I still don't know why! *chuckle*
Probably because the only time you don't have to put effort into a character's emotions is the time you're feeling those emotions yourself - it makes writing them much easier. And most readers can pick up when the writer felt what they were writing.
So, make sure you clearly visualise the scene from your POV character's POV, and possibly other characters too. Know how they feel, know how that feeling is going to affect them. It'll probably be similar to how it would affect you...
posted
Yes, Alias, I agree wholehardedly. The over-use of description is generally relegated to the ranks of the unpublished, and it is recognised as such by the professional literary circles. And yes, it does spawn from the "show don't tell" attitude. I think that these are phases that a novelist must go through. First, his/her writing ceases to be static. Then, he/she realizes that over-description can be an utterly fruitless thing.
By the way, I was speaking to a co-worker and I found something utterly interesting. Now I'll say, this co-worker of mine is most intelligent, as well as being an avid reader. I gave him an example of a sentence precariously overladen with analogy, symobolism, and needless adjectives. In response, he stated that it was perfect.
The non-writer as well as the new-writer (a period which, I am told, can span several decades) seems to experience a delusion with regards to the art. When reading, our minds tend to fill in blanks and description, much of it being completely derived from our minds and not the pages. A few evocative words can trancend so much that we honestly fool ourselves into believing that there is more to it, on retrospect anyway. The starkness of descriptive imagery used in professional titles must be analyzed by the would-be writer, if any professional attempts are to be contrived. Unless you're a whalloping genius, anyway.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
