We interpret things differently. This has become very clear to me the last months. First off, you need to know that I live in constant pain. Constant, as in all the time. 24/7. So when I say "I'm alright" I mean "no worse than usual" - which includes being in pain, feeling nauseous, muscle weakness and difficulty focusing. When I say "not doing so good" it's a worse, want-to-stab-myself-in-the-neck or can-I-die-soon pain.
People around me don't understand that. They see "alright" or "can't sleep" and they make comparisons to their own aches. And I want to slap them. Do they know how lucky they are? For one or a few days they're in pain and then they're not.
I turn bitter. I wonder what right they have to complain. And I react in a way seemingly violent, seemingly illogical and irrational.
And that's why your characters don't need to make sense - not to everyone else. As long as you know the reason behind their reactions, fine. Their personal problems and hang-ups make them themselves. It gives them personality and a life outside the pages. You might need to have them snap somewhere in the story or make a friend of theirs explain the situation to the main character. Or you can show these issues to the reader through internal 3rd person POV.
Or maybe you don't mention it at all. The world is full of people we will never understand. It only makes sense if your main character encounters a few of those too.
Showing posts with label writing technique. Show all posts
Showing posts with label writing technique. Show all posts
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Who Sees?
Are you wondering which Point of View (POV) you are using? Then the chance is high you’re using 3rd person limited – and you’re doing it wrong.
I’ve talked about POV before and this is a brief reminder. The question about point of view is simple – who is seeing the story unfold?
1st person – Who sees? I do.
2nd person – Who sees? A narrator sees what you do
3rd person limited – Who sees? The main character/s/ does
3rd person omniscient – Who sees? The narrator does
Most people think they’re doing 3rd person omniscient – but they’re actually doing limited. Problem is that they’re doing it from everyone’s POV, at once. The rule is: Do not change POV within a scene. I know published authors do it, but I usually burn those books or feed them to the cat.
3rd person omniscient is a separate narrator. It can be the main character, but it’s a main character who sees herself differently (for example when looking back in time).
Assignment – write a 200 word story in each POV. I’d love to see your results in the comment section. Let me know if you want me to correct them and I’ll do that too (if needed).
Thursday, September 29, 2011
What? It's not obvious?
An often repeated mistake writers do (even published ones) is info-dumping. You’ve heard all about that, I’m sure, so I’ll give some attention to the opposite problem. Fellow writer, reader and horse-rider MuseInks (check out her blog) did me a favour and beta read one of my manuscripts.
Halfway through she asked me why my main character refused to turn to his family for help. I was taken aback; I thought it was obvious. I took a good look at my manuscript and realised that no, I had never truly explained it. I discussed the issue with another friend and come to an interesting understanding.
The reason I hadn’t felt like I needed to go into depth about his reluctance was that he acted like I would have. My friend on the other hand would have immediately turned to her family in the same situation. I had been defeated by my own idea of substated facts!
Our experiences change the way we view things. As writers we can’t know how the reader will interpret our characters and their actions. A reader who has had a family member suffering from cancer will be able to relate to My Sister’s Keeper on a different level than most.
As writers we will need to compensate our readers’ “inexperience”. A word here, a memory there.
It’s not easy to see through our own “blind spots”, the things that are so ingrained that we take them for granted. This is when a writer is blessed to have a beta reader or critter to point it out for them.
For the times when you don’t have that handy beta reader around, make sure you have some kind of answer for every “why does she do that?” you can find in your story.
What kind of blind spots have you experienced? Have you read a novel where you just couldn’t understand why the characters acted the way they did? Feel free to share your examples.
Monday, April 25, 2011
See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil
One of the major obstacles for a writer is to write characters - in plural. Many writers and authors write one character, over and over. S/he's always witty, and handsome, and sharp-minded and willing to meet conflict. Recognise the description?
One way to remember that all characters are characters is to imagine them in different "compartments". These will differ depending on which traits you are looking to give them. For conflict, I have three compartments: See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.
See no evil:
Your character might know something is wrong but s/he rather looks the other way and pretends the problem doesn't exist. This usually goes on until something dire happens. This type of character needs support to drive the plot forwards, for example a side-kick desperate to open his/her eyes. They can usually provide very humourous situations, and walk right into scenes most characters would avoid - a cheating partner, face a murderer without back-up, trusting someone they shouldn't, etc.
Hear no evil:
Your character refuses to believe anyone's word that something is amiss but insist on innocent until proven guilty. S/he also can't help but go investigate to find out the real truth. This will get them into problems when they meddle in things they shouldn't - like spying on smugglers, stalking partners, and go visit that growling volcanoe where an angry God is residing set on destroying the world. This type of characters provides very frustrating conversations for side-kicks who can never get them to trust their word. It sets up for double work, and your character will in person go look at everything interesting for plot, which makes it a good main character for a single-POV story.
Speak no evil:
These ones are tricky, because they simply will not say what's bothering them, or what they've seen, to anyone. This demands a lot from the writer to reveal things in body language and how the characters say the most innocent comments. If this isn't the active POV or not an internal narration it proves even more of a challenge. Which is, of course, why I love them. These kind of characters might give hints, and often dodge out of arguments. They will prefer to deal with the business themselves, so they don't need to talk about it with someone else, and probably goes off on their own investigation instead of turning to the police. In a romance story, their unwillingness to say what's wrong will push a relationship to the limit.
These "compartments" can all be mixed up, although I'm not sure I'd like to attempt a character having several of these personality traits! As always with examples, these are extreme generalizations. A character might just as well have one of these traits but consciously try to overcome it. Or just have hints of it in some situations. Either way, I hope this way of thinking will help you to stay on track while writing.
Do you have any 'mind-games' to stay in tune with your characters' personality? What kind of compartments do you put yours in?
One way to remember that all characters are characters is to imagine them in different "compartments". These will differ depending on which traits you are looking to give them. For conflict, I have three compartments: See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.
See no evil:
Your character might know something is wrong but s/he rather looks the other way and pretends the problem doesn't exist. This usually goes on until something dire happens. This type of character needs support to drive the plot forwards, for example a side-kick desperate to open his/her eyes. They can usually provide very humourous situations, and walk right into scenes most characters would avoid - a cheating partner, face a murderer without back-up, trusting someone they shouldn't, etc.
Hear no evil:
Your character refuses to believe anyone's word that something is amiss but insist on innocent until proven guilty. S/he also can't help but go investigate to find out the real truth. This will get them into problems when they meddle in things they shouldn't - like spying on smugglers, stalking partners, and go visit that growling volcanoe where an angry God is residing set on destroying the world. This type of characters provides very frustrating conversations for side-kicks who can never get them to trust their word. It sets up for double work, and your character will in person go look at everything interesting for plot, which makes it a good main character for a single-POV story.
Speak no evil:
These ones are tricky, because they simply will not say what's bothering them, or what they've seen, to anyone. This demands a lot from the writer to reveal things in body language and how the characters say the most innocent comments. If this isn't the active POV or not an internal narration it proves even more of a challenge. Which is, of course, why I love them. These kind of characters might give hints, and often dodge out of arguments. They will prefer to deal with the business themselves, so they don't need to talk about it with someone else, and probably goes off on their own investigation instead of turning to the police. In a romance story, their unwillingness to say what's wrong will push a relationship to the limit.
These "compartments" can all be mixed up, although I'm not sure I'd like to attempt a character having several of these personality traits! As always with examples, these are extreme generalizations. A character might just as well have one of these traits but consciously try to overcome it. Or just have hints of it in some situations. Either way, I hope this way of thinking will help you to stay on track while writing.
Do you have any 'mind-games' to stay in tune with your characters' personality? What kind of compartments do you put yours in?
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Me and myselves
Point Of View, or our dear old POV, is a question all writers must face sooner or later. Usually sooner. In simplistic terms, POV answers the question "who tells the story?" and there are four major groupings:
1) first person - ex. I got hit by a train and I could feel my ribs break.
2) second person - ex. You got hit by a train and must have felt your ribs break.
3a) third person limited - ex. She got hit by a train and could feel her ribs break.
3b) third person omniscient (all knowing) - ex. She got hit by a train and must have felt her ribs break.
Talking about POV is the same thing as dicussing the story's narrator.
1) In 1st person, the narrator is the same as the main character. It's all seen from her or his head and the story is told completely influenced by this character's values, prejudices, dislikes, likes and experiences. The reader will not know anything beyond what the character knows, which makes some plots trickier to handle. In my current WIP I balance first person with short scenes in omniscient 3rd person so to introduce the threat to the clueless main character. According to some the problem with first person is that the story easily gets "ranty" - the writer need to note the train of thought chronologically and "the way it's thought". I haven't edited my way through enough 1st person narrations to judge on my own if this statement has any truth, but it's good to bear in mind.
The challenge - you can't present information unknown to the main character
The opportunity - you can give your readers an intense ride and tie them closely and emotionally to the main character
Ex.
I got hit by a train at 5.14 pm and felt my ribs break. Not a pleasant feeling and my rage at the hand which had pressed against my back grew and engulfed the pain. I would get the son of a bitch. One way or the other.
2) In 2d person, the narrator is not the same as the main character. The main character is the "you" in the story. It's the story about someone told to that very person. I've seen this done spectacularly well in one book - Robson. The story is about a woman retelling the story of her husband's (the "you") struggle against cancer. I can imagine it would work great in books about alzheimer as well, or senile characters (for example "The Notebook", although they don't use that narration technique in it).
The challenge - to connect with the reader when the story is obviously told to someone else (unless the reader can identify with the "you" in the story)
The opportunity - in my mind, you can tell difficult tales in a little less personal way and therefore handle less cute subjects.
Ex.
You got hit by a train at 5.14 pm and you must have felt your ribs break; the paramedics said you were still conscious at the site. It can't have been a pleasant feeling, but perhaps your rage against the hand that had pushed you out on the tracks engulfed even your pain. You wanted revenge, and you would get in one way or the other.
3a) In 3rd person limited, the narrator is the main character, although not in as a direct way as 1st person. However, you as a writer must still obey to the fact that everything is limited to the character's experiences, intellect etc. You can relate direct thoughts just as you can in 1st person. The technique allows you to have multiple characters/POVs, but for all that's holy, NEVER change POV in the middle of a scene! I don't care which author has done it or which smart person tells you it's possible. You say you have a good example? I bet it's in 3rd person omniscient and isn't a POV change at all, just the narrator focusing on another character. There's a difference.
The challenge - to keep the view limited to only one narrator within each scene
The opportunity - to invite the reader to share the mind and experiences of the character yet be free to step out of the emotional rollercoaster at times.
Ex.
She got hit by a train at 5.14 pm and she felt her ribs break. It wasn't a pleasant feeling and her rage at the hand which had pressed against her back grew and engulfed the pain. She would get the son of a bitch. One way or the other.
3b) In 3rd person omniscient, the narrator is a completely other person than the main character and who knows everything (or pretty much) about the characters and perhaps even the story. If the story somewhere contains "little did she know" then you got an omniscient narration. The narrator can imbue the story with prejudices, knowledge and "memories" that the main character (or character in focus) doesn't know about or doesn't share. The narrator has a distinct voice and there are no direct thoughts from the characters (direct thought = 'This sucks'; wheras indirect thought = 'This sucks, she thought').
The challenge - it's not possible to relate the characters feelings and thoughts directly
The opportunity - memories, knowledge and other facts can be freely related by the narrator regardless of what the character/s/ wouldn't know.
Ex.
She got hit by a train at 5.14 pm and she must have felt her ribs break, even though she never could recall that moment. The man that had pushed her out on the tracks was already gone by the time the paramedics turned up. The train guard, who had been tending his inflamed tooth when the so-called accident happened, said she had jumped. He was afraid to admit anything else, even to himself. The paramedics believed him; everyone did. But she knew the truth. She would get the son of a bitch, she thought, one way or the other.
Feel free to discuss these points in the comment section, or post your own examples (or paragraphs you wonder about). I'll do my best to give sensible answers. I'm also very curious about which pro's and con's you have experiences with each narration style! Please share.
1) first person - ex. I got hit by a train and I could feel my ribs break.
2) second person - ex. You got hit by a train and must have felt your ribs break.
3a) third person limited - ex. She got hit by a train and could feel her ribs break.
3b) third person omniscient (all knowing) - ex. She got hit by a train and must have felt her ribs break.
Talking about POV is the same thing as dicussing the story's narrator.
1) In 1st person, the narrator is the same as the main character. It's all seen from her or his head and the story is told completely influenced by this character's values, prejudices, dislikes, likes and experiences. The reader will not know anything beyond what the character knows, which makes some plots trickier to handle. In my current WIP I balance first person with short scenes in omniscient 3rd person so to introduce the threat to the clueless main character. According to some the problem with first person is that the story easily gets "ranty" - the writer need to note the train of thought chronologically and "the way it's thought". I haven't edited my way through enough 1st person narrations to judge on my own if this statement has any truth, but it's good to bear in mind.
The challenge - you can't present information unknown to the main character
The opportunity - you can give your readers an intense ride and tie them closely and emotionally to the main character
Ex.
I got hit by a train at 5.14 pm and felt my ribs break. Not a pleasant feeling and my rage at the hand which had pressed against my back grew and engulfed the pain. I would get the son of a bitch. One way or the other.
2) In 2d person, the narrator is not the same as the main character. The main character is the "you" in the story. It's the story about someone told to that very person. I've seen this done spectacularly well in one book - Robson. The story is about a woman retelling the story of her husband's (the "you") struggle against cancer. I can imagine it would work great in books about alzheimer as well, or senile characters (for example "The Notebook", although they don't use that narration technique in it).
The challenge - to connect with the reader when the story is obviously told to someone else (unless the reader can identify with the "you" in the story)
The opportunity - in my mind, you can tell difficult tales in a little less personal way and therefore handle less cute subjects.
Ex.
You got hit by a train at 5.14 pm and you must have felt your ribs break; the paramedics said you were still conscious at the site. It can't have been a pleasant feeling, but perhaps your rage against the hand that had pushed you out on the tracks engulfed even your pain. You wanted revenge, and you would get in one way or the other.
3a) In 3rd person limited, the narrator is the main character, although not in as a direct way as 1st person. However, you as a writer must still obey to the fact that everything is limited to the character's experiences, intellect etc. You can relate direct thoughts just as you can in 1st person. The technique allows you to have multiple characters/POVs, but for all that's holy, NEVER change POV in the middle of a scene! I don't care which author has done it or which smart person tells you it's possible. You say you have a good example? I bet it's in 3rd person omniscient and isn't a POV change at all, just the narrator focusing on another character. There's a difference.
The challenge - to keep the view limited to only one narrator within each scene
The opportunity - to invite the reader to share the mind and experiences of the character yet be free to step out of the emotional rollercoaster at times.
Ex.
She got hit by a train at 5.14 pm and she felt her ribs break. It wasn't a pleasant feeling and her rage at the hand which had pressed against her back grew and engulfed the pain. She would get the son of a bitch. One way or the other.
3b) In 3rd person omniscient, the narrator is a completely other person than the main character and who knows everything (or pretty much) about the characters and perhaps even the story. If the story somewhere contains "little did she know" then you got an omniscient narration. The narrator can imbue the story with prejudices, knowledge and "memories" that the main character (or character in focus) doesn't know about or doesn't share. The narrator has a distinct voice and there are no direct thoughts from the characters (direct thought = 'This sucks'; wheras indirect thought = 'This sucks, she thought').
The challenge - it's not possible to relate the characters feelings and thoughts directly
The opportunity - memories, knowledge and other facts can be freely related by the narrator regardless of what the character/s/ wouldn't know.
Ex.
She got hit by a train at 5.14 pm and she must have felt her ribs break, even though she never could recall that moment. The man that had pushed her out on the tracks was already gone by the time the paramedics turned up. The train guard, who had been tending his inflamed tooth when the so-called accident happened, said she had jumped. He was afraid to admit anything else, even to himself. The paramedics believed him; everyone did. But she knew the truth. She would get the son of a bitch, she thought, one way or the other.
Feel free to discuss these points in the comment section, or post your own examples (or paragraphs you wonder about). I'll do my best to give sensible answers. I'm also very curious about which pro's and con's you have experiences with each narration style! Please share.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
When All Else Fails…
…use duct-tape. It works in real life, and it works in writing. There are, of course, two ways of using duct tape. Sometimes either way is okay, sometimes one way is used inappropriate and you find yourself 10 miles from the nearest settlement and your car has come asunder (or your spaceship, which would be even more annoying).
Duct taping is doubly important now as NaNo is approaching!!!!! (tiny Pratchett craziness)
Two ways of using duct tape:
Duct taping is doubly important now as NaNo is approaching!!!!! (tiny Pratchett craziness)
Two ways of using duct tape:
- The duct tape will keep the whole thing together so you can roll into safe harbour
- The duct tape will fix it permanently
As in real life, the permanent duct tape fix only works for less important things, or objects that aren’t much used. The temporary patch-up is however very useful so not to lose your stride or when you’re stuck on a bus and don’t have a thesaurus.
Let’s start with “what a hell is duct taping in writing?”
Duct taping is when you do a makeshift solution for a writing problem. For example:
- a synonym of the word you want to use but can’t remember.
- a summary/shallow description of how the heroine steers the rampaging truck out of harm’s way instead of the detailed “this is how you do it” description that you want.
- a simple scene where the Evil Dude reveals his Evil Plans instead of the intricate and complicated one where the reader learns of The Plans by surmising what someone else is doing.
- writing “went to street X where the snazzy boutique is” instead of going to the library, finding a New York guide book, looking through all streets to find a suitable place and boutique, before actually continuing to write.
- a dialogue without deeper descriptions and speech-tags.
The most important rule of writing is to write. Duct taping helps you to use the steam while it’s hot (alright, when it’s not hot it’s not steaming, but I have acquired an artistic license to lie and exaggerate).This is especially important when you’re prone to writer’s block, or when you have a limited amount of time or very varied amounts of time on your hands.
I admit, I’m a lazy researcher. Permanent duct taping is my favourite. You often find me rewriting segments and sentences when I can’t remember the word I want. If I don’t know how my character would fix the hole in the spacecraft hull, I erase the hole and create another problem she can fix (which I know how to do). I don’t look up how dresses fit in the 15th century, I describe the dress in a non-revealing way.
If you like research, but have little time to write, I suggest write when you feel for it by using careful duct taping. Then do research and insert the information you want when you can. That way your thoughts will be archived and the cake just lies there, waiting for the frosting.
For some things you don’t have a choice. They can’t – or shouldn’t - be duct taped until the end of Eternity. Major plot points can’t be skimmed over. Character revelations shouldn’t be done in info dumps. Dialogue needs descriptions of character reactions.
Only you can decide what will be a permanent fix. Choose wisely. Time will tell.
But until end of November, DUCT TAPE RULES!
Thursday, September 9, 2010
A really catty remark
I will now try to get two requests into the same post - cats, and dialogue. Alright, I admit, the cats will only be there for examples. This post isn't about cats, and I apologize for deceiving you.
Dialogue is good. Remember this, and if you haven't read the short story "Hills like White Elephants" by Hemingway, do so. That's a fine example of how you can keep a story going through dialogue alone.
When I say dialogue is good I mean it's a great tool for developing your story, yet often - it seems - left unused! Through dialogue you have the perfect opportunity to reveal characters' personality, to relate backstory, to develop both plot and characters. It gives a welcome relief from extensive - however lovely - descriptions, can add humour to a serious situation and also relate descriptions ("Does it always rain this much?" "No, just when you're around. You should come by more often, the grass is all withered. My pansies are thoroughly dead.") We learn through conversation in real life, and so does your reader and your character (through the dialogue in your story). Obviously, dialogue shouldn't be used for info-dumping. Everything you write need to come naturally from the context of the scene.
I love to use dialogue to show off my characters, and I often figure out their personality in the way they react to others. Their language, use of words and what they say (about themselves, others and the surroundings) explain a lot. Anna Gavalda actually writes out her characters not talking in an empty "talk slot" (my knowledge of professional words for these things are abysmall and I apologize. Feel free to add the right terms) which gives a sense of what the person holds back. What we don't want to say, say a lot (see my post about characters).
As example, you have a character of a passive agressive type. This is how you show and don't tell, using dialogue.
"We should spend christmas at my parents this year."
"Again?"
"You were the one not wanting to spend thanksgiving at their's instead of at your brother's. We talked about this, for Christ's sake!"
"Sure. Whatever."
The example was a very clean-cut case with no added text. Most dialogue is improved by the right amount of descriptions, "talk line" (i.e. 'he said with a sneer') and action segments. There's a world of difference between "I saw your mother today." and "I saw your mother today," Benny-the-Bully said and leered insinuatingly.
Or, using the previous example:
"We should spend christmas at my parents this year," she said cheerfully.
The cuttlery tinkled against glass as I froze, the dish water having the same effect on my skin that my wife's words had on my manlihood.
"Again?"
I saw her brow crease as she turned her attention towards me. The sun had faded and I realised just how far into autumn we were and how soon Christmas would arrive.
"You were the one not wanting to spend thanksgiving at their's instead of at your brother's. We talked about this, for Christ's sake!"
"Sure. Whatever."
I fished the butcher knife from the water and began to rinse it. The edge was dull; I would need to sharpen it.
I must admit, I often take the easy way out. How? you might wonder. I keep my character count down. Handling many characters at once is taxing, especially in dialogue. You need to be more specific in your "talk lines", in your naming of characters (if you have four "he" discussing wildly, it'll get messy) and when you have dialogue without talk lines, it must be obvious through what is said (or the surrounding text) who is doing the talking. One trick I use is to mention the person talking as the last thing before the dialogue - or as the first thing right after.
Example:
The garden reverberated with growlings from the eight kittens. Mandy, the youngest, didn't know how to get up into the apple tree and watched it thoughtfully.
"Help?"
"What now?"
Whiskers came to her side, abandoning the patch of dirt in which he had been lapping sun for half an hour.
Dialogue isn't perfect. We - at least not I - don't have everything perfectly in our heads before we start saying things. We can't add all the "uhm"s and broken sentences that exist in real life, but we should not forget it in the story. Nor do we stick to the same subject - a friend once told me how he never got around to saying witty things because before he had phrased it in his mind, people had gone off talking about other things. Writers are allowed artistic liberties, but perfect conversation will ring false. Besides, unclear statements, interruptions and sidetracks are perfect ways to propel your story forwards and make for hilarious - or sad - situations.
This is a perfect conversation (and an imperfect way to write):
Catty the cat sat on the mat, just around the corner from the livingroom.
"Hey, James, I think Catty is gone, we can go to the kitchen to steal cheese right now."
"Great idea, July! We take the long way and crouch behind the threshold. We will be in the kitchen through the hole beside the stove in ten minutes!"
"Yay, cheese! Let's go."
No, they will not handily use each others' names. They probably both know how long it'll take and don't need to say it. James is likely to only say "follow me" and then explain as they go. July knows James and might just wiggle a mousy eyebrow to suggest the cheese stealing by saying "we can do you know what". I think this way of building up a conversation - based on the fact that your character (Catty's POV) must know things - for cheating. It feels unnatural. Nathan Bransford have some opinions on stilted dialogue as well.
Dialogue happens in almost every story. It should come naturally, help the story in some way (character development, propelling plot forwards or relating background/setting) and be pinned on someone (unless the whole point is that someone says something and the POV doesn't know who said it - but I won't go into that). I had never dug deep into the art of creating dialogue until I received the request of writing a post about this subject, but in the future I'll definitely pay more attention to it. After all, it deserves to be noticed, and it pays back to give it due credit.
What tricks do you use to hold up a natural conversation in your story? Do you have any mistakes/tips to share? How do you use dialogue to get your characters and their stories where you want them?
Dialogue is good. Remember this, and if you haven't read the short story "Hills like White Elephants" by Hemingway, do so. That's a fine example of how you can keep a story going through dialogue alone.
When I say dialogue is good I mean it's a great tool for developing your story, yet often - it seems - left unused! Through dialogue you have the perfect opportunity to reveal characters' personality, to relate backstory, to develop both plot and characters. It gives a welcome relief from extensive - however lovely - descriptions, can add humour to a serious situation and also relate descriptions ("Does it always rain this much?" "No, just when you're around. You should come by more often, the grass is all withered. My pansies are thoroughly dead.") We learn through conversation in real life, and so does your reader and your character (through the dialogue in your story). Obviously, dialogue shouldn't be used for info-dumping. Everything you write need to come naturally from the context of the scene.
I love to use dialogue to show off my characters, and I often figure out their personality in the way they react to others. Their language, use of words and what they say (about themselves, others and the surroundings) explain a lot. Anna Gavalda actually writes out her characters not talking in an empty "talk slot" (my knowledge of professional words for these things are abysmall and I apologize. Feel free to add the right terms) which gives a sense of what the person holds back. What we don't want to say, say a lot (see my post about characters).
As example, you have a character of a passive agressive type. This is how you show and don't tell, using dialogue.
"We should spend christmas at my parents this year."
"Again?"
"You were the one not wanting to spend thanksgiving at their's instead of at your brother's. We talked about this, for Christ's sake!"
"Sure. Whatever."
The example was a very clean-cut case with no added text. Most dialogue is improved by the right amount of descriptions, "talk line" (i.e. 'he said with a sneer') and action segments. There's a world of difference between "I saw your mother today." and "I saw your mother today," Benny-the-Bully said and leered insinuatingly.
Or, using the previous example:
"We should spend christmas at my parents this year," she said cheerfully.
The cuttlery tinkled against glass as I froze, the dish water having the same effect on my skin that my wife's words had on my manlihood.
"Again?"
I saw her brow crease as she turned her attention towards me. The sun had faded and I realised just how far into autumn we were and how soon Christmas would arrive.
"You were the one not wanting to spend thanksgiving at their's instead of at your brother's. We talked about this, for Christ's sake!"
"Sure. Whatever."
I fished the butcher knife from the water and began to rinse it. The edge was dull; I would need to sharpen it.
I must admit, I often take the easy way out. How? you might wonder. I keep my character count down. Handling many characters at once is taxing, especially in dialogue. You need to be more specific in your "talk lines", in your naming of characters (if you have four "he" discussing wildly, it'll get messy) and when you have dialogue without talk lines, it must be obvious through what is said (or the surrounding text) who is doing the talking. One trick I use is to mention the person talking as the last thing before the dialogue - or as the first thing right after.
Example:
The garden reverberated with growlings from the eight kittens. Mandy, the youngest, didn't know how to get up into the apple tree and watched it thoughtfully.
"Help?"
"What now?"
Whiskers came to her side, abandoning the patch of dirt in which he had been lapping sun for half an hour.
Dialogue isn't perfect. We - at least not I - don't have everything perfectly in our heads before we start saying things. We can't add all the "uhm"s and broken sentences that exist in real life, but we should not forget it in the story. Nor do we stick to the same subject - a friend once told me how he never got around to saying witty things because before he had phrased it in his mind, people had gone off talking about other things. Writers are allowed artistic liberties, but perfect conversation will ring false. Besides, unclear statements, interruptions and sidetracks are perfect ways to propel your story forwards and make for hilarious - or sad - situations.
This is a perfect conversation (and an imperfect way to write):
Catty the cat sat on the mat, just around the corner from the livingroom.
"Hey, James, I think Catty is gone, we can go to the kitchen to steal cheese right now."
"Great idea, July! We take the long way and crouch behind the threshold. We will be in the kitchen through the hole beside the stove in ten minutes!"
"Yay, cheese! Let's go."
No, they will not handily use each others' names. They probably both know how long it'll take and don't need to say it. James is likely to only say "follow me" and then explain as they go. July knows James and might just wiggle a mousy eyebrow to suggest the cheese stealing by saying "we can do you know what". I think this way of building up a conversation - based on the fact that your character (Catty's POV) must know things - for cheating. It feels unnatural. Nathan Bransford have some opinions on stilted dialogue as well.
Dialogue happens in almost every story. It should come naturally, help the story in some way (character development, propelling plot forwards or relating background/setting) and be pinned on someone (unless the whole point is that someone says something and the POV doesn't know who said it - but I won't go into that). I had never dug deep into the art of creating dialogue until I received the request of writing a post about this subject, but in the future I'll definitely pay more attention to it. After all, it deserves to be noticed, and it pays back to give it due credit.
What tricks do you use to hold up a natural conversation in your story? Do you have any mistakes/tips to share? How do you use dialogue to get your characters and their stories where you want them?
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
The Show Must Go On
I think few writers have missed the ever repeated phrase "show, don't tell". However, as a new writer (in fact, even as an old and experienced writer) it's difficult to tell what's showing and what's telling. Some cases might even be more effective "told" than "shown" but that is something to be left until after you can actively make the choice. I'm of the firm belief that rules are meant to be bent, if not broken, but only if you first know the rules.
Back to the vital question: what is telling?
Telling:
He hated her.
Showing:
The mere sight of her made him bare his teeth and it was only thirteen years of learning to control his reactions that allowed him to pull the growl back into a pleasant smile.
Which one of these conveys the most images and emotions? I hope you say "showing" or I've failed. But this was easy showing - you're in his head and can convey all these things to the reader without someone else interpretating. When it comes to writing, you must also be able to translate descriptions and characters through a pair of glasses = your POV. That's the active character, the one who sees. If you write with a complete omniscient everyone-included narrative this might not be a problem. However, I can't recall having ever read anything like that. Every story I've read has been from someone's perspective - be it a narrator, one of the 20 active characters or a completely unengaged narrator (a video camera - try Moderato Cantabile by Marguerite Dumas if you want to see how that works).
Now imagine the man in the previous example. He's controlling the flash of emotions, letting nothing show in his opinion because the growl was so brief no one noticed. The active character is now the woman he's meeting and she doesn't have a clue about his emotions. How do I give a sense of hatred from the man?
Telling:
She could sense that he hated her.
Showing:
He smiled at her when their hands met briefly, in fact so briefly that he let go before she had barely touched his skin. She felt unbalanced as she straightened, and she tried to understand his hooded gaze and the closed fists he pressed against his sides.
Granted, my showing isn't all too clear that he HATES her. He might be embarrassed, scared or just feeling awkward. But it gives enough away for the reader to pick up other hints along the way that might explain it more clearly. Also, is it important to know his exact feeling? The tension is there, the promise of conflicts and perhaps danger. That might be all you need.
The most difficult part of "showing not telling" is to describe when your own active character (POV) isn't aware of what you want to describe. We deny our own emotions, we doubt what we see and what we sense - we do this in real life and it should happen in writing as well. Even if you write fantasy, people are people. Alright, I give you the benefit of a doubt. You might decide to do a superadvance sci-fi world where people are completely aware of themselves. You can now go write something fantastic instead of reading the last paragraph (or go buy chocolate, make tea, watch Firefly).
Telling:
She didn't realise she loved him.
Showing:
Her chest tightened as he kept avoiding her eyes. Annoyance filled her and she brushed hair away from her face, molding it back into the curls falling down her back. He was being silly; it had been a long time since high school. Just because he had changed into some dropdead gorgeous brat he didn't need to stick up his nose like this. She had known him when he was a fumbling fifteen year old and she remembered he hadn't always had money on the bank or a face fit for ads. All he had had back then was his smarts, and she had longed for the ease with which he passed every exam thrown in front of him. It was unfair, she thought as she studied the indifferent expression on his face as he began talking to her husband. He had it all. She sighed, but she couldn't even envy him for it. She looked to her husband, then to the young upstart again. They were a world apart.
I think you all noticed the difference in length between the paragraphs. Showing takes more space, especially when you're showing something of which the active character isn't aware. I even compressed this more than I would have liked. To reveal things hidden within like this often takes a full manuscript , just consider the romances you have watched. I'm not saying romances are the only genre with it, but they are the stories where these hidden emotions are vital for the plot.
I have focused this post on showing emotions, but it's possibly to apply the same strategy of replacing an adjective with verbs for other descriptions.
Telling:
It was a warm day.
Showing:
The breeze licked her face like a human breath, and she stretched her naked legs out into the sunshine, hoping to make her dark skin shine golden by the end of the summer.
I now wish you good luck with your writing. You got more examples of "showing not telling"? Post them in the comment section, I'd love to read and discuss it!
Back to the vital question: what is telling?
Telling:
He hated her.
Showing:
The mere sight of her made him bare his teeth and it was only thirteen years of learning to control his reactions that allowed him to pull the growl back into a pleasant smile.
Which one of these conveys the most images and emotions? I hope you say "showing" or I've failed. But this was easy showing - you're in his head and can convey all these things to the reader without someone else interpretating. When it comes to writing, you must also be able to translate descriptions and characters through a pair of glasses = your POV. That's the active character, the one who sees. If you write with a complete omniscient everyone-included narrative this might not be a problem. However, I can't recall having ever read anything like that. Every story I've read has been from someone's perspective - be it a narrator, one of the 20 active characters or a completely unengaged narrator (a video camera - try Moderato Cantabile by Marguerite Dumas if you want to see how that works).
Now imagine the man in the previous example. He's controlling the flash of emotions, letting nothing show in his opinion because the growl was so brief no one noticed. The active character is now the woman he's meeting and she doesn't have a clue about his emotions. How do I give a sense of hatred from the man?
Telling:
She could sense that he hated her.
Showing:
He smiled at her when their hands met briefly, in fact so briefly that he let go before she had barely touched his skin. She felt unbalanced as she straightened, and she tried to understand his hooded gaze and the closed fists he pressed against his sides.
Granted, my showing isn't all too clear that he HATES her. He might be embarrassed, scared or just feeling awkward. But it gives enough away for the reader to pick up other hints along the way that might explain it more clearly. Also, is it important to know his exact feeling? The tension is there, the promise of conflicts and perhaps danger. That might be all you need.
The most difficult part of "showing not telling" is to describe when your own active character (POV) isn't aware of what you want to describe. We deny our own emotions, we doubt what we see and what we sense - we do this in real life and it should happen in writing as well. Even if you write fantasy, people are people. Alright, I give you the benefit of a doubt. You might decide to do a superadvance sci-fi world where people are completely aware of themselves. You can now go write something fantastic instead of reading the last paragraph (or go buy chocolate, make tea, watch Firefly).
Telling:
She didn't realise she loved him.
Showing:
Her chest tightened as he kept avoiding her eyes. Annoyance filled her and she brushed hair away from her face, molding it back into the curls falling down her back. He was being silly; it had been a long time since high school. Just because he had changed into some dropdead gorgeous brat he didn't need to stick up his nose like this. She had known him when he was a fumbling fifteen year old and she remembered he hadn't always had money on the bank or a face fit for ads. All he had had back then was his smarts, and she had longed for the ease with which he passed every exam thrown in front of him. It was unfair, she thought as she studied the indifferent expression on his face as he began talking to her husband. He had it all. She sighed, but she couldn't even envy him for it. She looked to her husband, then to the young upstart again. They were a world apart.
I think you all noticed the difference in length between the paragraphs. Showing takes more space, especially when you're showing something of which the active character isn't aware. I even compressed this more than I would have liked. To reveal things hidden within like this often takes a full manuscript , just consider the romances you have watched. I'm not saying romances are the only genre with it, but they are the stories where these hidden emotions are vital for the plot.
I have focused this post on showing emotions, but it's possibly to apply the same strategy of replacing an adjective with verbs for other descriptions.
Telling:
It was a warm day.
Showing:
The breeze licked her face like a human breath, and she stretched her naked legs out into the sunshine, hoping to make her dark skin shine golden by the end of the summer.
I now wish you good luck with your writing. You got more examples of "showing not telling"? Post them in the comment section, I'd love to read and discuss it!
Friday, July 23, 2010
I don't write stories about happy little elves
Why? you might scream in dismay.
Because it's dull. A character going through a whole series of event, or even just one, without meeting any sort of obstacle makes a rather uniform book. It robs you of a climax.
Every story needs a conflict. Conflicts aren't a part of happy little elf stories, because conflicts are difficult, dark and usually full of despair. I don't care if you write comedy, drama, fantasy, chick lit or YA. Somewhere along the road, your character needs to run into problem. It might be a boyfriend ditching her, a horridly embarrasingly stand-up gig, a dragon eating his arm, a friend betraying her or a bunch of hungry vampires glowing in the sunlight.
Like in real life, I need the contrast of struggle and pain to enjoy it when your character triumphs. Like relishing a bar of chocolate after exercising. Or getting an A on the stupid exam. Or cradling your newborn in your arms. Things like that doesn't come without a struggle.
Don't rob your characters - or your readers - of the satisfaction of overcoming hardships.
Because it's dull. A character going through a whole series of event, or even just one, without meeting any sort of obstacle makes a rather uniform book. It robs you of a climax.
Every story needs a conflict. Conflicts aren't a part of happy little elf stories, because conflicts are difficult, dark and usually full of despair. I don't care if you write comedy, drama, fantasy, chick lit or YA. Somewhere along the road, your character needs to run into problem. It might be a boyfriend ditching her, a horridly embarrasingly stand-up gig, a dragon eating his arm, a friend betraying her or a bunch of hungry vampires glowing in the sunlight.
Like in real life, I need the contrast of struggle and pain to enjoy it when your character triumphs. Like relishing a bar of chocolate after exercising. Or getting an A on the stupid exam. Or cradling your newborn in your arms. Things like that doesn't come without a struggle.
Don't rob your characters - or your readers - of the satisfaction of overcoming hardships.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Characters for the Emotionally Stunted Writer
If anyone is offended by the blog title, I apologise in advance. It's all my friend's fault, because she suggested the title when I said I was going to take the conversation about characterization I had with her and make it into a blog post. She cuts herself short, of course, but the title stuck.
First of all, I loathe a story which starts off - or in any way includes - a description dump. Please don't present your main character, or other characters, by using one or several paragraphs telling me how they look, what they've done in their life, what they will be doing, what their family is like etc etc. Want to tell me who your character is? Show it through action! Interaction is the best way to understand people - it's in the approach to others you reveal your own personality, prejudices, interests.
Remember that your characters are more than their looks. Looks are usually the first thing we judge in real life so it makes sense that it's the first impression we get from our characters. But as we travel down the path of the story together, looks aren't the only thing we notice. On a side note, our appearance is influenced by who we are. Confidence is attractive. A shy person might hunch together and look short. Now, let's stop thinking about looks - it makes me self conscious! So, who ARE your character? Which heartbreaks did she experience - and which ones did she cause? Or did his father berate him so much about sport he came to hate it? Is she allergic against her wolf-deamon? Your characters' history and backgrounds are directly linked to their behaviour today.
So what are the reasons why? Let's say your character hates celebrating her birthday. Why? Her father died on her 12th birthday and she doesn't want to be reminded of it. Or a less serious example. Your character hates Mr Right (well, Mr Right-to-be). Why? Because he has the same blue eyes as her first bf who dumped her after convincing her to have sex.
Note that you don't need to write everything into the story (although readers usually seem to enjoy these tidbits - I sure do!). But the fact that you know helps you realise how your character would act in other situations. Remember that your POV decides what you can relate about your characters. A limited 3rd person will not allow you to tell anything about the surrounding characters that your main character doesn't have a reason knowing.
Tying into that which isn't said - what a character doesn't want to tell about itself is usually the things that defines them the most. The secrets and hurtful experiences often affect our actions and reactions - the same is true for your characters.
Another thing that I often notice when people describe their characters are substated facts (eloquently named by me at this very moment). These are traits that I perceive automatically when another trait is mentioned (this is all due to prejudices, and can vary from person to person). For example, if you say "blonde" I imagine that person having blue eyes. If you say "fire fighter" I think "brave", "tells jokes" includes witty, fun, wanting to be the centre of attention (etc). So, focus on the things about your character that aren't already understood through other traits.
This ties in to the one idea that has helped me the most - imagine your character portrait being a caricature. When it comes to painting, an artist can immeditely relate a person's identity by focusing on a few distinct traits and then just be sketchy about the rest. Which parts of your character are the ones that separates him or her from everyone else?
Another mind-game is to remember that every effect has a cause (or several) and every cause has effects. For my part, I usually experience the effects first, and the realise the cause. That means that I see how my character reacts to something, and then I figure out why he or she reacted the way he/she did. Examples:
Cause -> effects (he almost drowned once -> he hates bathing/he has nightmares/he panics when he has hard to breathe)
effect -> causes (she's afraid to be alone -> she doesn't like silences/her brother scared her once when she was young/her own thoughts freak her out/her granny has been telling her too many sinister tales).
As this became such a long post, I'll save one important character developer for a later date - The Conflict. As always I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Also feel free to give me ideas on what else you want me to write about.
First of all, I loathe a story which starts off - or in any way includes - a description dump. Please don't present your main character, or other characters, by using one or several paragraphs telling me how they look, what they've done in their life, what they will be doing, what their family is like etc etc. Want to tell me who your character is? Show it through action! Interaction is the best way to understand people - it's in the approach to others you reveal your own personality, prejudices, interests.
Remember that your characters are more than their looks. Looks are usually the first thing we judge in real life so it makes sense that it's the first impression we get from our characters. But as we travel down the path of the story together, looks aren't the only thing we notice. On a side note, our appearance is influenced by who we are. Confidence is attractive. A shy person might hunch together and look short. Now, let's stop thinking about looks - it makes me self conscious! So, who ARE your character? Which heartbreaks did she experience - and which ones did she cause? Or did his father berate him so much about sport he came to hate it? Is she allergic against her wolf-deamon? Your characters' history and backgrounds are directly linked to their behaviour today.
So what are the reasons why? Let's say your character hates celebrating her birthday. Why? Her father died on her 12th birthday and she doesn't want to be reminded of it. Or a less serious example. Your character hates Mr Right (well, Mr Right-to-be). Why? Because he has the same blue eyes as her first bf who dumped her after convincing her to have sex.
Note that you don't need to write everything into the story (although readers usually seem to enjoy these tidbits - I sure do!). But the fact that you know helps you realise how your character would act in other situations. Remember that your POV decides what you can relate about your characters. A limited 3rd person will not allow you to tell anything about the surrounding characters that your main character doesn't have a reason knowing.
Tying into that which isn't said - what a character doesn't want to tell about itself is usually the things that defines them the most. The secrets and hurtful experiences often affect our actions and reactions - the same is true for your characters.
Another thing that I often notice when people describe their characters are substated facts (eloquently named by me at this very moment). These are traits that I perceive automatically when another trait is mentioned (this is all due to prejudices, and can vary from person to person). For example, if you say "blonde" I imagine that person having blue eyes. If you say "fire fighter" I think "brave", "tells jokes" includes witty, fun, wanting to be the centre of attention (etc). So, focus on the things about your character that aren't already understood through other traits.
This ties in to the one idea that has helped me the most - imagine your character portrait being a caricature. When it comes to painting, an artist can immeditely relate a person's identity by focusing on a few distinct traits and then just be sketchy about the rest. Which parts of your character are the ones that separates him or her from everyone else?
Another mind-game is to remember that every effect has a cause (or several) and every cause has effects. For my part, I usually experience the effects first, and the realise the cause. That means that I see how my character reacts to something, and then I figure out why he or she reacted the way he/she did. Examples:
Cause -> effects (he almost drowned once -> he hates bathing/he has nightmares/he panics when he has hard to breathe)
effect -> causes (she's afraid to be alone -> she doesn't like silences/her brother scared her once when she was young/her own thoughts freak her out/her granny has been telling her too many sinister tales).
As this became such a long post, I'll save one important character developer for a later date - The Conflict. As always I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Also feel free to give me ideas on what else you want me to write about.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Clichés Are Your Friend
I think every writing blog out there, every author and every professional in the literary movement will tell you to avoid clichés like the plague. I've seen it often enough. I've got a different view on the matter, however.
Embrace them! You must know your enemy to vanquish them.
I take a cliché, I happily apply it. Then I mess it up so bad you don't know which way is up or down. (Alright, I might be prone to exaggeration) I'll examplify, because I find general statements mostly unhelpful when it comes to actually doing something.
A young woman starts her new job. She's pretty, and so is her boss. The boss seem so many miles above her, but she falls in love. Boss-employée relationship ensue.
Everyone who recognise the plot, raise your hands.
So what now? You take the boss, make her female and 10 years older. Tada!
Let's try one about characters:
Sexy, social, laughing blonde enchants every guy around her and acts like a bitch towards every girl who comes close. The blonde is empty-headed, and obviously slept her way to her position. She wouldn't know a fresh opinion if it so sat on her pretty nose.
Seen it before? Oh, sorry, did I forget to tell you she's a rebel infiltrator, sabotaging the mission? My bad.
Clichés are fun. If you know them, it's so easy to trod all over them, to surprise people because readers EXPECT you to follow the clichés. Just be careful - they might throw your story down before they realise you aren't actually being cliché.
I now want your examples! Let me know how you took a cliché and wrought it to something original.
Embrace them! You must know your enemy to vanquish them.
I take a cliché, I happily apply it. Then I mess it up so bad you don't know which way is up or down. (Alright, I might be prone to exaggeration) I'll examplify, because I find general statements mostly unhelpful when it comes to actually doing something.
A young woman starts her new job. She's pretty, and so is her boss. The boss seem so many miles above her, but she falls in love. Boss-employée relationship ensue.
Everyone who recognise the plot, raise your hands.
So what now? You take the boss, make her female and 10 years older. Tada!
Let's try one about characters:
Sexy, social, laughing blonde enchants every guy around her and acts like a bitch towards every girl who comes close. The blonde is empty-headed, and obviously slept her way to her position. She wouldn't know a fresh opinion if it so sat on her pretty nose.
Seen it before? Oh, sorry, did I forget to tell you she's a rebel infiltrator, sabotaging the mission? My bad.
Clichés are fun. If you know them, it's so easy to trod all over them, to surprise people because readers EXPECT you to follow the clichés. Just be careful - they might throw your story down before they realise you aren't actually being cliché.
I now want your examples! Let me know how you took a cliché and wrought it to something original.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
A Skeleton in the Story
As I couldn't think of a new topic, a friend suggested a post about plots. Face it, plots are my weak point - at least coming up with a main plot. But I know the importance of having an actual main plot.
But what is a main plot? In abstract terms it's the skeleton that keeps up your story. On that plot you can hang the flesh (characters), the muscles (the action), the subplots (the brain) and the descriptions (clothes).
I just made those metaphors up. Or are those similes? Never mind. The main plot! In a specific example of what can be seen as the main plot, let's look at a few examples from literature and films.
Lord of the rings - the quest to defeat Evil
Streetdance - to compete and win the british streetdance competition
Transformers - find the Cube
Sahara - find the ironclad ship/the plague source
Pretty Woman - prostitute getting off the streets
Runaway Bride - Writing a piece about a woman who deserts men at the altar
Why is it even important to have a main plot? Because it's the red thread that ties everything else together. You need a focus when writing, something that the readers can hold on to when you swivel out into the bush (those are the fun moments, right?). Personally, these main plots usually come AFTER I got the story. My story is the characters, the subplots. It's not like this for everyone. Some might even get a "duh" reaction to this post because the main plot is their starting point and therefore natural.
But the main plot doesn't need to be what the story is about. My main plots include "the universe rule is threatened by rebels" (the story is about love beyond the norms), finding a lost familiar (it's about love and guilt and facing hardships instead of running from them) and a detective looking for a missing person (about the good in people despite the darkness around them).
I might be rambling, and I feel I'm not very clear on why you need it, but that doesn't keep me from being certain an overarching structure such as this is vital for any story. Without it, you can't have a beginning and an end. You can keep adding small plots and events forever - it's like a real life!
A writing teacher once taught me how to write a short story by the suggestion to look at it as a small piece of a cake. Novels are the same - just includes a larger piece. No matter how much I'd like to, I've never been able to gobble down a whole cake. If I did, I'd probably be sick of it. But getting a small glance out of a life, that's delicious.
But what is a main plot? In abstract terms it's the skeleton that keeps up your story. On that plot you can hang the flesh (characters), the muscles (the action), the subplots (the brain) and the descriptions (clothes).
I just made those metaphors up. Or are those similes? Never mind. The main plot! In a specific example of what can be seen as the main plot, let's look at a few examples from literature and films.
Lord of the rings - the quest to defeat Evil
Streetdance - to compete and win the british streetdance competition
Transformers - find the Cube
Sahara - find the ironclad ship/the plague source
Pretty Woman - prostitute getting off the streets
Runaway Bride - Writing a piece about a woman who deserts men at the altar
Why is it even important to have a main plot? Because it's the red thread that ties everything else together. You need a focus when writing, something that the readers can hold on to when you swivel out into the bush (those are the fun moments, right?). Personally, these main plots usually come AFTER I got the story. My story is the characters, the subplots. It's not like this for everyone. Some might even get a "duh" reaction to this post because the main plot is their starting point and therefore natural.
But the main plot doesn't need to be what the story is about. My main plots include "the universe rule is threatened by rebels" (the story is about love beyond the norms), finding a lost familiar (it's about love and guilt and facing hardships instead of running from them) and a detective looking for a missing person (about the good in people despite the darkness around them).
I might be rambling, and I feel I'm not very clear on why you need it, but that doesn't keep me from being certain an overarching structure such as this is vital for any story. Without it, you can't have a beginning and an end. You can keep adding small plots and events forever - it's like a real life!
A writing teacher once taught me how to write a short story by the suggestion to look at it as a small piece of a cake. Novels are the same - just includes a larger piece. No matter how much I'd like to, I've never been able to gobble down a whole cake. If I did, I'd probably be sick of it. But getting a small glance out of a life, that's delicious.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Step-by-Step - Character Descriptions
Alright, I'm hoping I'll say something intelligent that will help people in their writing endeavours. So, I'm doing something like a tutorial, I guess. Let me know if you have other ideas or any demands on what I should write about next time!
CHARACTER DESCRIPTIONS
Original version:
The man walked through the door, dragging his feet behind him. He wore glasses and his dark blonde hair hung over them. He had brown eyes and there was a scar on his right ankle. The clothes he wore were simple jeans and a t-shirt. He had no bag but he held a book in his hand.
This isn't too bad, right? But it can be better!
Tips 1: Be Specific (which doesn't mean exhaustive!)
Roger walked through the door, dragging his feet behind him. He wore a pair of Christian Dior glasses and the rat-coloured hair hung over them. In his hands were a copy of The Chocolate Addict's Guide To France.
Imagine your writing as a caricature portrait - choose the traits that best describe your character (or the ones important for what is happening or will happen) and skip the rest. Readers have imagination too. However, be careful to not "forget" important traits, just to later describe them. Readers can easily be annoyed if you suddenly say something that breaks their idea of your character. And that a man carries that kind of book raises questions about why. And readers wondering things (i.e. wanting to find them out) is a very good thing.
Tips 2: Use the Right Verb
Roger stumbled over the threshold. A pair of Christian Dior glasses balanced on his nose and made a constant wrinkle in the rat-coloured hair at his ears. He pressed a copy of The Chocolate Addict's Guide To France to his chest.
To say "stumbled" indirectly says he wasn't exactly picking his feet up from the ground, and gives another kind of atmosphere. It makes it an awkward moment. That the glasses "balanced" instead of being worn shows a certain precariousness. All in all, you can give a lot of atmosphere and suspense if you choose another verb when describing a character (or landscape for that matter). To say "pressing to one's chest" instead of "hold" gives the impression of a shy character - further deepening the stumbled/awkward/dragging his feet thing.
Tips 3: Tie It to Action/Backstory
Roger stumbled over the threshold, almost dropping the Christian Dior glasses that balanced on his nose. There was a constant wrinkle in the rat coloured-hair where the glasses clung to his ears; his mother had always tried to smooth it out. He pressed The Chocolate Addict's Guide To France, determined not to lose it again.
Can't you just tell his overprotective mother was an annoying sweetheart? And where did he lose the book, and why doesn't he want to do it again? The fact that he's almost dropping the glasses justifies that you mention them and erases the "information dump" feel.
Take Notice 1:
An important thing to remember however is that the description is always an observation based on someone observing! What is noticed depends on the person looking at it - I wouldn't know a pair of Christian Dior glasses if they chewed on my butt. A man is likely to notice some parts of female anatomy more than others. Etc. Etc. If you got a detective noting down the people coming inside, he might just do it in the original way I wrote.
Take Notice 2:
If the observer and the person being observed know each other, they aren't likely to notice as much. I barely see if my friends have changed hair cut, or have new clothes, or what colour their hair is. Also, I sure as hell don't sit there thinking through everything they've done in their lives so the reader can find that out. So please don't introduce a character that way.
Thanks for your time and feel free to come with opinions and questions!
CHARACTER DESCRIPTIONS
Original version:
The man walked through the door, dragging his feet behind him. He wore glasses and his dark blonde hair hung over them. He had brown eyes and there was a scar on his right ankle. The clothes he wore were simple jeans and a t-shirt. He had no bag but he held a book in his hand.
This isn't too bad, right? But it can be better!
Tips 1: Be Specific (which doesn't mean exhaustive!)
Roger walked through the door, dragging his feet behind him. He wore a pair of Christian Dior glasses and the rat-coloured hair hung over them. In his hands were a copy of The Chocolate Addict's Guide To France.
Imagine your writing as a caricature portrait - choose the traits that best describe your character (or the ones important for what is happening or will happen) and skip the rest. Readers have imagination too. However, be careful to not "forget" important traits, just to later describe them. Readers can easily be annoyed if you suddenly say something that breaks their idea of your character. And that a man carries that kind of book raises questions about why. And readers wondering things (i.e. wanting to find them out) is a very good thing.
Tips 2: Use the Right Verb
Roger stumbled over the threshold. A pair of Christian Dior glasses balanced on his nose and made a constant wrinkle in the rat-coloured hair at his ears. He pressed a copy of The Chocolate Addict's Guide To France to his chest.
To say "stumbled" indirectly says he wasn't exactly picking his feet up from the ground, and gives another kind of atmosphere. It makes it an awkward moment. That the glasses "balanced" instead of being worn shows a certain precariousness. All in all, you can give a lot of atmosphere and suspense if you choose another verb when describing a character (or landscape for that matter). To say "pressing to one's chest" instead of "hold" gives the impression of a shy character - further deepening the stumbled/awkward/dragging his feet thing.
Tips 3: Tie It to Action/Backstory
Roger stumbled over the threshold, almost dropping the Christian Dior glasses that balanced on his nose. There was a constant wrinkle in the rat coloured-hair where the glasses clung to his ears; his mother had always tried to smooth it out. He pressed The Chocolate Addict's Guide To France, determined not to lose it again.
Can't you just tell his overprotective mother was an annoying sweetheart? And where did he lose the book, and why doesn't he want to do it again? The fact that he's almost dropping the glasses justifies that you mention them and erases the "information dump" feel.
Take Notice 1:
An important thing to remember however is that the description is always an observation based on someone observing! What is noticed depends on the person looking at it - I wouldn't know a pair of Christian Dior glasses if they chewed on my butt. A man is likely to notice some parts of female anatomy more than others. Etc. Etc. If you got a detective noting down the people coming inside, he might just do it in the original way I wrote.
Take Notice 2:
If the observer and the person being observed know each other, they aren't likely to notice as much. I barely see if my friends have changed hair cut, or have new clothes, or what colour their hair is. Also, I sure as hell don't sit there thinking through everything they've done in their lives so the reader can find that out. So please don't introduce a character that way.
Thanks for your time and feel free to come with opinions and questions!
Monday, June 7, 2010
Deadly Writing Sins
I have thrown down a lot of books lately already when reaching around page 10. These includes Steinbeck, Sue Grafton and others. Here's a few reasons, and tips of what not to do.
1. Don't Preach.
Unless, of course, your character goes around preaching to everyone around them. Then it's your character preaching, not you.
(There's also a difference between Preaching and Having a Meaning. It's the difference between a blaring headline saying STARVING CHILDREN IN UGANDA and the black and white picture with the skeleton-thin baby looking blankly out into the desert)
2. Don't POV shift.
Alright, if you're writing Harlequin, you can POV shift in the middle of a scene. I only read those for the historical swoons and the similes such as "the motorcycle felt like one gigantic d***do".
3. Don't close me out.
If you're putting the reader some distance away from the reader, you lost me already.
4. Don't use cardboard characters.
If you can replace the characters' names with The Incurable Bachelor, the Promiscuous Bitch, the Shy and Secretive Professor, you're probably guilty.
5. Don't puke out characters on me
Unless your POV character is... wait, scrap that. There's never a reason to take up several, or even one, paragraph describing exactly how a character looks, what they like doing, what they've worked with and how their childhood was. Not the main character, not the other characters. I read to get to know them. Start with this, and I don't need to finish the book. In fact, I can just scan the first few pages in the bookshop and not buy it at all.
6. Don't lose track
If you've already have one character suspecting your character of something, don't make a big scene of him being all shocked when suspecting this later (and again!). Also, don't have your character reading the name on her borrowed suit, if she'll seconds later will wear her own spare suit. That just proves you aren't making an effort (get yourself a good editor/beta reader).
7. Don't make everyone gorgeous
Alright, I do this myself. But it's annoying when I read it. *vouching to stop*
8. Don't write a genre I don't like
Hey, I said it was about me. This is just a reminder that everything is about personal taste - if I don't like your book, it might not be about you after all. Though a damn good book makes me read any genre.
9. Hide my cookies
I like my sweets, but if you're going to drown me in every bit of the character's personality up front, I'll have nothing to look forward to. Dangle them ahead! Make me wonder "why did he say/do that?"
Alright, can't think of more Deadly Writing Sins. Feel free to add some yourselves through the comment section!
1. Don't Preach.
Unless, of course, your character goes around preaching to everyone around them. Then it's your character preaching, not you.
(There's also a difference between Preaching and Having a Meaning. It's the difference between a blaring headline saying STARVING CHILDREN IN UGANDA and the black and white picture with the skeleton-thin baby looking blankly out into the desert)
2. Don't POV shift.
Alright, if you're writing Harlequin, you can POV shift in the middle of a scene. I only read those for the historical swoons and the similes such as "the motorcycle felt like one gigantic d***do".
3. Don't close me out.
If you're putting the reader some distance away from the reader, you lost me already.
4. Don't use cardboard characters.
If you can replace the characters' names with The Incurable Bachelor, the Promiscuous Bitch, the Shy and Secretive Professor, you're probably guilty.
5. Don't puke out characters on me
Unless your POV character is... wait, scrap that. There's never a reason to take up several, or even one, paragraph describing exactly how a character looks, what they like doing, what they've worked with and how their childhood was. Not the main character, not the other characters. I read to get to know them. Start with this, and I don't need to finish the book. In fact, I can just scan the first few pages in the bookshop and not buy it at all.
6. Don't lose track
If you've already have one character suspecting your character of something, don't make a big scene of him being all shocked when suspecting this later (and again!). Also, don't have your character reading the name on her borrowed suit, if she'll seconds later will wear her own spare suit. That just proves you aren't making an effort (get yourself a good editor/beta reader).
7. Don't make everyone gorgeous
Alright, I do this myself. But it's annoying when I read it. *vouching to stop*
8. Don't write a genre I don't like
Hey, I said it was about me. This is just a reminder that everything is about personal taste - if I don't like your book, it might not be about you after all. Though a damn good book makes me read any genre.
9. Hide my cookies
I like my sweets, but if you're going to drown me in every bit of the character's personality up front, I'll have nothing to look forward to. Dangle them ahead! Make me wonder "why did he say/do that?"
Alright, can't think of more Deadly Writing Sins. Feel free to add some yourselves through the comment section!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)