The Craft of Writing: Character

[rmthunter]

Every writing book I have ever run across says one thing about building a character: Don't tell us what the character is thinking; show us what he/she does.

Thinking about that, and thinking about many of the books I have read, that seems to be a Golden Rule: I've come to really dislike being told what a character's feelings are, unless the descriptions are brief and subtle -- I really start to feel that the author is writing down to his/her audience. A good illustration of what I mean in that regard is the way Jim Grimsley handled character development in Kirith Kirin: There is a scene in which Jessex and Kirith Kirin have a chance encounter on the way back to Camp; because of Jessex's age, Kirith Kirin cannot really make his feelings known, and Jessex just doesn't know enough about such matters to say anything. The scene ends with Jessex (who is also the narrator), going back to their campsite. The section ends: "I went back to the fire without a word, feeling only a little scalded, nothing more." It's one of the most effective "love" scenes I have ever read.

The fact that the novel is cast in the form of a memoir allows Grimsley some latitude in this, but this is really close to the way he handles characters and their feelings throughout, and it works beautifully.

Other ways to build character:

Physical description
Speech patterns
Habits/quirks

Ummm -- what else?

(I've noted this elsewhere, but David Gerrold has a wonderful chapter on character building in Worlds of Wonder, which I recomend highly.)

Also, where do your characters come from?

Bob

[anderclayton]

*laugh*

We'll see:p It is In Transit at the library. I think I'm going to have to check out a few of those other ones too.

Ander

[rmthunter]

C'mon, Ander -- How do you build characters?

(I'm trying to get you to think about it and figure out what you're doing, if you haven't already. It makes it easier down the line, when you can say to yourself, "Hey! I need a character here who is going to do this and this." And then you can build that character so he/she is convincing and doesn't seem like something you stuck in because you had to. That's the craft part.)

Bob

[AuntieEmma[$]]

rmthunter said

Every writing book I have ever run across says one thing about building a character: Don't tell us what the character is thinking; show us what he/she does.

I disagree with this. I think that written fiction (as opposed to movies) is unique in being able to take readers inside the character's heads, and I think it's great, though not necessarily required, for writers to take advantage of that.

Also, if you're talking about the general "show, don't tell" rule, I've never understood that to mean that one should show the characters' actions but not their thoughts. Rather, I understood it to mean show (i.e. dramatize) what's happening (which may include what characters are thinking) using scenes, rather than using an omniscient narrator to summarize.

(Also, some people cite "show don't tell" as if it were an absolute rule -- always show, never tell. I think in general, though, it's more a question of proportion -- not never tell, but don't spend too much time telling. With some exceptions -- short stories, for example, can be done entirely in scenes. But they don't have to be -- it's a sylistic choice.)

For example:

Once upon a time there was a girl named Cinderella who lived in a cottage in the woods with her stepmother and stepsisters.

That's telling, and is obviously appropriate.

Cinderella's stepsisters were always mean to her, and they made her do all the housework. They were very domineering and would always give her orders.

That's telling, and is probably less effective than showing:

Grunwalda gnawed the last bit of meat from her chicken bone and tossed it on the floor. She glared at Cinderella. "Don't just sit there, you lazy thing. Pick up the bone. Right now!"

But it has nothing to do with whether the character's thoughts are shown or not:

Cinderella picked up the broom and swept the chicken bone, the lettuce leaves, the bread crusts, and the crumbs of cake into a neat pile near the door.

That's showing, but so is this, even though it includes thoughts:

Cinderella picked up the broom. Wish I could sit for a while longer, she thought. My poor feet! She swept the chicken bone in the direction of the doorway. What's that stuff on the floor over there? Lettuce? How disgusting. They're such pigs. Oink, oink, oink!

But this is telling:

Cinderella resented her sisters, although she was careful not to let her feelings show. Sometimes, after a hard day of cleaning up after them, she would cheer herself up by thinking of insulting things about them. She would compare them to pigs or cows or sheep. That would make her smile. Because she had always lived in that house with those people, she didn't know that any other kind of life was possible. But despite that, even though she had no reason to believe that things could be different, she always knew, deep inside, that she deserved a better life.

Also, where do your characters come from?

The stork brought them?

[AuntieEmma[$]]

rmthunter said

How do you build characters?

(I'm trying to get you to think about it and figure out what you're doing, if you haven't already. It makes it easier down the line, when you can say to yourself, "Hey! I need a character here who is going to do this and this." And then you can build that character so he/she is convincing and doesn't seem like something you stuck in because you had to. That's the craft part.)

I've tried using something similar to method acting -- thinking, "If I were this character in this circumstance, what would I be feeling?"

[rmthunter]

Accepted, as modified by Auntie Emma.

I guess I'm reacting to the fashion for characters telling all in recent fantasy literature, usually to the marked detriment of the story. Perverse creature that I am, I very much prefer a story where I have to spend some energy figuring out where these people are coming from -- like, three days later my face lights up and I say, "Got it!" Or maybe I don't get it until I read the book again. It's a thin line, granted.

On a practical level, I think that gives a lot of room for the readers to put themselves into the story, because it's the reader's imagination that gets brought into play.

OK, since no one wants to play:

My characters tend to start as images (Hah! Everything starts off as images with me), and I sometimes don't really see them very clearly. In that case, I start pasting in bits and pieces of people I know.

For example, Cassemin, one of the main characters of the book, started off as just a vague concept: boy almost a grown-up, maybe 16 years old, shy and awkward, very smart, very talented. Not much to go on. Then I decided, OK, he should look something like my friend R looked like at that age, and maybe he should chatter away when he feels comfortable with someone the way D does. He also has some of my characteristics (every artist has to be, to some extent, Everyman), some of B's bad points (which are legion, but we won't go there), etc.

That's pretty much how I create a character. I use Gerrold's list to block out the major characters (at least I have pretty consistently), and add color and texture by using my friends and acquaintances (and enemies) to round out the portrait.

Cross-posting with AuntieEmma.

[rmthunter]

AuntieEmma said

I've tried using something similar to method acting -- thinking, "If I were this character in this circumstance, what would I be feeling?"

I tend to think, "OK -- how would so-and-so react to this?"

[anderclayton]

Hmmm...

OK. In thinking about it a bit I'd say that characters come from perhaps four sources. Internal, external, integral, and made-up (yeah yeah yeah that one isn't as official sounding as the others but hey this isn't an official essay:p). Probably most would be a combination of sources.

Internal would be from within yourself--traits that you yourself possess to some degree or another.
External would be traits that you've observed in others.
By integral I mean that the characters arise from the story you are trying to tell, either because of a point you are trying to make or because you need someone that does x because it is necessary to the story (you create Ali Musafi the storeowner because you need someone to sell something ).
Made-up would be just that. You can imagine a character that does x or if your character was x then what would they do?

I'd say to at least a certain degree the different sorts of characters in a story are driven by the needs of the story. It would be tough to have a story in which all of the characters are extremely introverted. I mean sure you could do it (maybe a book of meditations or something of that sort) but it is much easier to not do that. Indeed I'd say that it is probably easier to minimize the heavily internal characters in a story.

I'd say this might be sorta more of a 'why character' sort of thing rather than necessarily a 'how' but it all relates.

Ander

[anderclayton]

AuntieEmma said

I disagree with this. I think that written fiction (as opposed to movies) is unique in being able to take readers inside the character's heads, and I think it's great, though not necessarily required, for writers to take advantage of that.

It is definitely possible to go inside characters heads in movies as well. Not as common but it happens and sometimes it is effective (I really dug how About a Boy did it as an example).

Personally I'd go with a case by case basis for this one. Sometimes showing everything gets really, seriously cumbersome--especially when people start doing things just for the sake of getting some point or another across. On the other hand, sometimes it is just lazy to go internal with things.

Ander

[anderclayton]

rmthunter said

I guess I'm reacting to the fashion for characters telling all in recent fantasy literature, usually to the marked detriment of the story.

Which books are you talking about?

Ander

[AuntieEmma[$]]

rmthunter said

Cross-posting with AuntieEmma.

???

anderclayton said

Personally I'd go with a case by case basis for this one. Sometimes showing everything gets really, seriously cumbersome--especially when people start doing things just for the sake of getting some point or another across. On the other hand, sometimes it is just lazy to go internal with things.

Oh, I totally agree that it's good to go on a case by case basis. The point I was trying to make earlier, though, was that showing versus telling, at least as I always understood it, is something very different from actions versus thoughts. Showing versus telling has to do with whether events are narrated (usually by an outside, omniscient narrator) or dramatized. A story can take place almost completely inside a character's head, and still be shown, rather than told. Different things.

Here's an example -- Metamorphosis -- a lot of the story is told through the character's thoughts, takes place inside his head (there's not a lot that actually happens, as far as actions go), but the story overall is mostly shown, with only little bits of telling.

[anderclayton]

He was writing his post at the same time that you wrote your post (hence the cross posting comment)

[AuntieEmma[$]]

anderclayton said

He was writing his post at the same time that you wrote your post (hence the cross posting comment)

Oh, ok.

BTW, in About a Boy (I read part of it, but didn't see the movie) how did they show, in the movie, what was going on inside people's heads?

[anderclayton]

Yes they did. At least they did with the lead character (and it is more of a case of "tell not show"). Some of the best lines in the film were just asides made from what the character was thinking and not how he was portraying himself and how the two clashed and how what he said he was thinking was just so outrageously shallow but something that I myself might be somewhat guiltily thinking even though I'd never actually say it out loud.

They didn't reaaally do it a whole lot but it was pretty effective.

I'd totally recommend the film btw My fav from the year it showed (2002 I think).

Ander

[AuntieEmma[$]]

How did they show his thoughts? Did they use voiceover?

[anderclayton]

Yeah. Voiceover. He narrates things. It is generally only at the usual places (beginning scenes, at the start, etc) but sometimes he just makes random comments about what he is thinking.

Ander

[rmthunter]

anderclayton said

Which books are you talking about?

Ander

Bren Cameron in the first three of C. J. Cherryh's atevi novels; also her Hammerfall; the flashbacks in Carol Berg's Son of Avonar; ditto in Fiona Patton's Stone Prince; sections of Cherryh's Fortress Series (large sections); there's a little too much in Mark Anthony's Last Rune series.

I guess the problem is that people are trying in some instances to be "literary" and just coming across as being self-indulgent. Yeah, James Joyce, Virginia Woolf and William Faulkner could get away with it, but they were using it as stream of consciousness, a formal device, and doing it very, very well.

[rmthunter]

AuntieEmma said

Oh, I totally agree that it's good to go on a case by case basis. The point I was trying to make earlier, though, was that showing versus telling, at least as I always understood it, is something very different from actions versus thoughts. Showing versus telling has to do with whether events are narrated (usually by an outside, omniscient narrator) or dramatized. A story can take place almost completely inside a character's head, and still be shown, rather than told. Different things.

If I understand this, I think we're basically agreeing. When dealing with character, however, I think the narrated/dramatized thing maybe starts to blend together: the narration can simply describe events without reference to the feelings behind people's actions. I'm talking about showing and not telling in terms of describing how a character acts, whether it be through narration or dialogue, rather than telling us what the character is feeling at the time.

Two novels that come to mind that may be good examples: Jim Grimsley's Kirith Kirin and Mary Renault's The Last of the Wine. Both first person narratives, in both cases the narrative is descriptive, but very concrete, focusing on events. When the narrator does refer to his own feelings, it is a very brief, almost throw-away reference. It has the effect of illuminating character (both narrators are seen as somewhat circumspect, even a little reticent) and can lead to great intensity in a scene through minimal means, which I admire a great deal.

Grimsley has a scene in which Jessex (the narrator) and Kirith Kirin have a "chance" meeting outside their camp. The conversation is fairly elliptical and revolves around the fact that Jessex is underage and his reputation is in jeopardy if he spends too much time alone with Kirith Kirin, although that is never actually stated openly. It is also very revealing of their feelings for each other, although nothing is said about that: it is really a love scene without that subject ever being broached. When Jessex returns to the fire, his only comment is that he was feeling "a little scalded, nothing more." It is a tremendously effective scene, with little touches like Kirith Kirin shredding the leaves off a branch and then tearing the leaves into bits throughout this dialogue.

So I think we're pretty close together on it.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Ok. Problem is that "show don't tell" has a fairly specific conventional technical meaning (i.e., dramatize, don't narrate). (It's not about action versus emotion. You can show action. You can show thoughts. You can show emotions. You can tell about action. You can tell about thoughts. You can tell about emotions.) If you use the expression in a different sense than the conventional one, if you redefine "show don't tell" to mean something like "show action the way it would look to an outside observer, and don't describe to the reader what is going on inside the characters' heads, but let the reader infer that herself from the action you describe" -- then you're setting a rule for yourself that you may find quite useful, but it's a different rule than the original "show don't tell" rule, and then you lose the ability to use "Show don't tell!" as a convenient shorthand to point to a specific concept. (And the shorthand is convenient because the concept is hard to describe concisely.)

Anyway, terminology aside, as far as what you were saying about showing actions, not thoughts or emotions -- I think it depends. It can be very effective, as you said. It can also backfire. Sometimes it's possible to go overboard trying to be understated and subtle. I think that was my biggest problem back in the days when I was doing this writin' stuff. I think I held back so much that it was like a form of constipation -- and the reader, rather than having wonderful sparks of insight spontaneously combust in his head, was instead left thinking, "Well, that was nice, but so what?"

I blame Raymond Carver. Mr. Minimalism. At the time I was most focused on writing, he was the reigning God of the wannabe writers world. He did the understatement thing beautifully. He was a genius at it. He could write about more or less nothing, and reading it, you would feel strong, strange, undefinable emotions. It was magic. It was also impossible to imitate. When someone like me, or the hordes of other Carver imitators, would try our hands at minimalism, lacking Carver's magic touch the result would be writing that not only seemed on the surface like it was more or less about nothing, but actually was more or less about nothing.

Anyway, I guess it just goes to show that there really aren't any hard and fast rules when it comes to writing fiction. You have to look at what works, and what works for one kind of writer and for one kind of story may be the exact opposite of what is needed for another. There's also a question of what one needs for balance at any particular moment. You (Bob) may feel a need to work on being more understated, while I may feel a need to work on being less. (And you see why I was saying before that I think it's impossible to be "objective" when critiquing writing, except for fact-checking non-fiction? If there are no hard and fast rules, and I believe strongly that there aren't, then there are no "objective" criteria that can be applied. It all comes down to whether a story "works" for an individual reader -- and that's a totally subjective judgement on the reader's part.)

[rmthunter]

Anyway, terminology aside, as far as what you were saying about showing actions, not thoughts or emotions -- I think it depends. It can be very effective, as you said. It can also backfire. Sometimes it's possible to go overboard trying to be understated and subtle.

It's like anything else in writing (or any other art form) -- you can be as elliptical as you want as long as the reader has all the necessary clues to fill in the silences. I'm not about to insist that you can never use a word describing an emotional state about a character, but frankly, I don't feel like doing all the work for the reader. I'll do enough to give them what they need to figure it out, but they have to do the figuring. And sometimes it's much more economical to just say "He was furious." than to show him busting up the furniture.

It's much more interesting for me as a reader to have a character's reaction to a situation in front of me as a real reaction rather than being told what the character was feeling during that situation -- I can figure that out for myself.

It's also much more interesting for me as a writer to indicate or evoke this emotional state through relating his actions or words than it is to just tell the reader what it is. (it's also more difficult, but what's life without a challenge?)

By the way, when I've heard the "show, don't tell" mantra, it's been in the form of "show us what the character does," which to me necessarily implies that narration is a distinct part of the mix. I think it was Anne Lamott who put it that way, and Gerrold may have as well. (Actually, I don't think Gerrold did address it specifically, but he does insist that one thing you want to do is allow the reader to experience the story, and expands on that by saying that you don't want to explain everything to the reader. I think it's a valid extension of that idea.)

Rather than spend the rest of this thread picking at it, though, let's just say, "Fine -- tell us what the character is feeling if it's necessary to do so." And leave it at that.