posted
I was reading a book on writing today, it's fairly decent, 'Writing to ignite', but nothing really stands out. One of the points however, was that a character should only be described once unless a change was made or something specific needed to be emphasized.
I've found that a lot of writers stick to this, but I find I disagree with it immensely. I don't know, maybe I'm forgetful, but half the times I'll be reading and that one little description just slips away. I end up creating descriptions in my head that if I go back to check do not match up. What? Novinha has dark hair?
For myself, I favor sprinkling reminders throughout. So and so's brown hair ruffled in the wind. Shorter than John, Jim had to perch on a rock to see over the wall. Her olive eyes turned to hazel in the morning light.
Don't get me started on first person stories where the MC's name hasn't come up since chapter one!
Am I "wrong" on this? Yes, i know there is no "wrong", but you know what what i mean?
and lastly, why the heck is my shift not making caps?!?!?!
posted
I recently read a book on writing screenplays, and one of the screenwriter's tricks is to repeat the same one or two identifying details of an important character whenever he enters a scene (e.g. he has a limp and and eyepatch). But that bit of stage direction doesn't change from scene to scene, and the audience will never see the script. Why bother?
Because the people who *do* read the script are skimming through a stack of scripts, and the visual recommendation makes the character's individuality pop out of the background in a way another block of dialog wouldn't.
It's an interesting notion. Personally, as a writer or a reader, I don't give a hoot about the details of what a character looks like or wears, although I'm *hyper-aware* of nuances in the way a character talks. But not everyone is like me. I've had critiques from readers who want a description of a character when he makes his first entrance, and darn if the scene wasn't better *even for me* after I attended to that detail (thanks lmermaid!).
I suspect the describe-only-once "rule" was ginned up by someone who had a bad experience with a horrible manuscript. If there *should* be a rule, it would be the remember-not-everyone-is-as-into-your-thing-as-you-are rule. Some people are as hyper-attuned to the physical characteristics of a character as I am to their verbal tics.
I think the answer is moderation. Suppose Ivan has a long, thick, wiry and tightly curled black beard. If Ivan isn't in every bloody scene, it wouldn't hurt to have Ivan's beard make a narrative appearance every time he does, although not necessarily in all its long, thick, wiry, tightly curled and black glory. Maybe he comes in from outside and it's got ice encrusted in it. In another scene it is wet from melting snow. Later on he's combed it because he's going on a date. In the twenty years after epilogue it's shot through with gray.
ALSO: try the other shift. If you're on a laptop, most of 'em don't have keyboards that can stand up to the punishment a writer gives 'em. I like to use a separate keyboard and a stand which raises the laptop up to a comfortable height. Otherwise, there's the old stand-by: turn everything off and on. Back when keys on keyboards were real switches and not plastic decoration over a sealed membrane, I used to squirt WD-40 or Tri-flow under a sticky key. I wouldn't recommend it. Maybe go to Radio Shack and get switch cleaner; that probably won't help on most keyboards but it might help on some of the better ones (like on ThinkPads).
[This message has been edited by MattLeo (edited September 07, 2011).]
posted
Recently I've begun creating info documents for my WIPs. I'll write everything I've thought of about my characters, locations, history, etc. Then whenever I need to remember a tidbit I can just open it up and check. A lot of times I don't have anything but names, but that helps with a lot of scenes where otherwise I'd just have some generic nameless character saying lines, instead I can have some minor name.
Posts: 620 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also prefer a sprinkle of reminders, if they fit. It helps me visualize the character better. Besides, people notice other people, how they look, even if they've known each other a long time. For example, my best friend has this crazy, wavy, wild long hair, and I always notice it because it's pretty. My husband has this weird, intense but pale shade of blue eyes and blondish-red hair (no, not reddish-blond), and I notice because I think those features are unique and interesting, even though I've known him forever. Things like that are kind of like 'sprinkles' in real life, so it's natural to imitate it in writing, I think.
Posts: 128 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I absolutely sprinkle in reminders. I think it really cements the character in the reader's mind. OSC says he sometimes doesn't describe his characters one iota because the reader will put themselves in the character's shoes. However, I've tried that, and my critters call me on it every time. =)
posted
Axe -- I'm with OSC on this one. I have zero interest in the way characters look. What I've found is that readers don't seem to ask about the *main* characters, but they're curious about the minor characters who have a kind of "walk on/walk off" part. Those minor characters are part of the scenery, so people want them described.
Keystone, the piece I'm currently working on is a bit of a departure for me. It's a romantic comedy and the way the main character looks plays a part in the story. Kate's ex-husband Archie's new fiancée looks remarkably like Kate, but Kate and Archie are the only people in the story who don't see it. It's the old "give the rival every advantage the hero's got except the one that really counts" gambit. Under the circumstances I have to do the tedious work of imagining and describing what Kate's rival looks like (although in disparaging terms since Kate doesn't like her).
But as far as I'm concerned character appearance is just window dressing, and if I could dispense with it entirely I would. Where a personality is vivid enough people can imagine for themselves.
In another of my stories (The Wonderful Instrument) the heroine's best friend is the most beautiful woman in the world, and I don't expend a single word describing her. I can't. Everyone would have their own idea of what that would mean. What I have to do is describe the effect her looks have on other people. Not one reader asked for a description of her, because what really matters is the subtle interplay of friendship and rivalry between Nellie, who has charisma, and Summer, who has physical beauty. Summer's ultimately a pathetic character because she's holding the short end of the stick in this rivalry. Sooner or later whoever they're fighting over is going to decide Nellie is more interesting. That's why most readers seem to end up loving Summer. Her story arc is about learning to transcend her appearance.
posted
I don't mind getting a character description in a book, but chances are I'm going to have my own picture in my head pretty quick. So I don't really like it when the author dwells on appearance. Once I have my picture I don't want/need anyone else messing it up.
In my own writing, I am a minimalist on character description. I figure the reader is going to come up with their own picture, like I do, and after a certain point, nothing I say is going to affect that picture except it may annoy the reader because our pictures don't match.
posted
I personally don't have a preference whether the MC is described or not. As with most aspects of story, how something is done is of far greater importance to me as a reader. I do think some markets are somewhat prejudiced against physical descriptions, and this could potentially handicap a story up for publishing consideration. I am of the opinion that you include a description only as the story demands it. However, as always, write what satisfies your own desires.
Regarding the question at hand, whether descriptions should be sprinkled throughout as reminders, I believe readers retain a subconscious representation of a character from early on in a story. Therefore it behooves you to include a description very early, if you intend to do this, or else a later description could conflict witht the reader's initial visualization. I honestly don't think reminders are necessary unless something comes up later that could conflict with the image the reader has subconsciously assigned to the character. In addition, I feel that regular reminders could be interpreted by some readers as amateurish.
One of the best ways of deciding what to do is to find something or somebody you wish to emulate and study through critical/analytical reading how that story or writer presents it. You may find that much of what you perceive came from your own imagination. That is when I believe the writer truly succeeded.
posted
Very interesting thoughts. Some favor using your MC as a kind of rotschach (sp?) test for the reader to pour themselves into. I think that has some merit, as I've said I did imagine Novinha completely different and only later found I had filled her in.
For myself personally, while that could work, I have a distinct picture for my characters. I don't want to minutely describe every mole, but there is a general framework that I wish to convey because that is the character I imagine. People want to know the scene I see, why wouldn't they want to see the character I see?
But I see how it could be either way. And when I speak of reminders I don't mean a recap of the description, just a little trait once in awhile, though I definitely think it should never be allowed to conflict with something earlier or unless there's a reason even add a detail. Like leaving it blank that her hand has a tattoo and then later mentioning it.
Then again, I have been criticized for over describing a character (though that was always from their POV describing themselves), while simultaneously being critted for under describing a scene.
posted
If characters' physical appearances are central, I like to know what they look like. Stock character appearances, when, say plot is emphasized over milieu, idea, or character, are easy to remember and contribute artfullly because they're familiar and, well, stock characters that have been around since the earliest times. They come with carry-on baggage. Stock characters tend to be flat and static though, but not exclusively, nor less artfully characterized than round and dynamic ones. Leading characters don't need in-depth personality and behavior development when they're stock characters, nor are they subject to change appreciably.
Character emphasis over plot, appearances don't matter as much to me, and I think can get in the way of my identifying with them as a mystique participant or bystander or especially self-identifying with them as they go through their insuperable struggles. Character emphasis tends to favor personality and behavior circumstances, which are artfully subject to change and is I believe what character emphasis is about, over physical appearances. Developed characters' personality and behavior which artfully change tend to be round and dynamic. Even resistance to change is dynamic and character rounding. But then personality and behavior change are central plot drivers for character emphasis preference types: stories, novels, readers, and writers.
Stock characters may experience changes in fortunes external to their natures, rags to riches, salvaging triumph from defeat, and that sort of outward changes. Round and dynamic characters may experience moral and psychological changes or successfully or unsuccessfully resist change internal to their natures. ---- Rorscharh test? Interestingly, coincidentally, a gauge of self-identity and personality from a psychological, pyschoanalytical context.
[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited September 09, 2011).]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
