I like a few details, especially if the author considers them important. If there's something about a character that they're sensitive about, then that's always fun to hear about. I think a good rule is to include it if it gives readers a better idea of the character. Just because you might have a detailed dossier on them, including their blood type and how many freckles they have doesn't mean it has to be put into the text.
It's also important to get these details across early on, if they're going to be vital. It's no good telling everyone your character has brown hair five pages from the end of the book, if you've already let your readers give the character the hair colour of their choice. If it's important, then introduce it early on. Otherwise, I think you run the risk of alienating your readers slightly.
Often, I find that the sort of description an author gives can also give you some idea of their own personality or what they think is important. A while ago, I read The Razor's Edge, by Somerset Maugham. It's an amazing book and I loved it but I just hated the way the women were described. They were either thin, or fat. Or they were fat, but they'd become thin as they aged or they were thin but would become fat as they aged. Instead of telling us how they dressed or if they had kind eyes, it was all about how fat or thin they were. The most annoying aspect was that, despite this, I really did enjoy the book itself.
Jun 26, 2006, 11:27am[/url], Spring-loose Flit[/url] wrote: Actually, if you read the Tomorrow When the War Began series Marsden doesn't describe any of his characters once. I remember reading an interview with him where he said that character description interrupted with how people saw them. He does specify their ethnicity though, but after that it's up for all. Then again, if i remember correctly, he only had two different ethnicities other than anglo-saxon. That was Fi and whatsisname... :S i can't remember anymore, Lee? oh, and his Enemy was Asian too, weren't they?[/quote]
From what I remember, he does describe certain aspects about his character's appearances, except they're done over time, not in one go. Lee had a Thai/Vietnamese background, Homer was Greek (obviously!) and I thought there was something English about Fi, but I could be wrong here (i.e. 2nd generation English). Also, didn't Chris have an American accent or was it just that his parents were in America when the war broke out?
I've always felt character description should be proportional to the importance of the character. I don't mind reading detailed descriptions for the main character or other key ones, but I would be annoyed if lots of words were spent describing a character who wasn't going to be around for more than a chapter or so.
The author that comes to mind here is Thomas Hardy (surprise, surprise). He usually describes main characters extensively, but gives minor ones (especially the rural types) brief, sometimes stereotypical descriptions - in particular, the ones that function as a comedy relief more than anything else. I find this approach works really well - you come to know more about the interesting characters.
Keeper of the Sherbet Lemons
17 years ago
Keeper of the Sherbet Lemons
Guildmember
i thought Fi was Thai as well, or from another Asian country. :S I can't remember, and i don't think i can bring myself to read the books again.
I have a dislike of the stereotypical character discription of minor characters, which is why i think i don't describe characters much. For me, when you're observing people it's the more unusual aspects of them that remain in your mind, and that's what should be placed in the story because that's a key feature. So yes, there is a farmer with a shovel, but his nose has been broken before, or he walks with one foot turned inwards. I feel that adds depth to a story right there, makes the world feel larger than what's in print. you don't have to tell us anything else about that minor character, but it gives people the chance to wonder. For all we know, this farmer could have been a fighter for the King in some recent war, it allows readers to speculate and start having more of an understanding for the world.
I stand by the fact that people recognise faults over typical features, and everyone has faults. And if you work in these things to your minor characters, a lot of the time i find this can lead to a richer plot, and can even help you solve some world building issues, or create plot devices much later on.
But for me, i like holding more cards than the reader. I like to hint at things in little character descriptions of minor characters, and never tell you how they got there.
Keeper of the Sherbet Lemons
17 years ago
Keeper of the Sherbet Lemons
Guildmember
*distracts the double posting monster with a packet of sherbet lemons*
Well it's not as if i can eat them of late, anyway. Might as well put them to some use.
Anyway, dying to drag some people into a writing discussion again, and have been pondering over a few thoughts of late. I'm currently in the middle of writing two stories that both deal with magic (Antonia, and Hadan, if anyone wanted to know [img]http://s3.images.proboards.com/tongue.gif" alt=":P" border="0"/>). I've mentioned earlier how i handle Hadan magic, but Antonia is a completely different take to magic. Unlike Hadan, Antonia's magic is all fused in with religion.
All: what, you mean you're writing another story that's to do with religion, i'm totally and utterly amazed, never thought you'd use themes like that ever again.
Flit: *whaps All with a 2x4*
And it got me thinking, i've completely changed about my original steadfast resolve about how magic should be portrayed in stories. I've moved from science-based to something more fantastical. All the rules that i carefully set up for Hadan, i've almost completely ignored for Antonia. All that finite reasoning has been casually shrugged off.
So i started thinking, is there anything in stories that i would keep, that i have kept, changing from world to world. I simply could not find anything. When i start up a new world, i start it from scratch. To my knowledge i don't even go "this worked in Hadan, let's place the same rules here", consciously or unconsciously. It's only really the themes that seem to work their way in, but even they are approached differently.
So i was wondering, if you guys have anything that you refuse to change, any rule that you keep from story to story. Whether it's the way you treat magic, or battle, or even the language shared between characters. Is there some particular rule that you love and have kept up throughout your work, or do you try to do everything from scratch?
or do you have absolutely no idea [img]http://s3.images.proboards.com/tongue.gif" alt=":P" border="0"/>
love to hear from you all [img]http://s3.images.proboards.com/grin.gif" alt=";D" border="0"/>
I'm a big beleiver that stories kind of exist in a massive existential melting pot of sorts. Sometimes you reach in and pull a peice of string, and a little bit unravels, and little bit more and little bit more. You have to let the string unravel all on it's own though. If you force it, it'll break, and you lose it (I live in a world of analogy). So, I like to let my story dictate the setting and the rules. I very, very rarely look for inspiration between stories...
I've been thinking about it and I don't believe that I do have anything that stays constant in all of my stories. Even my rules of magic can chance from story to story. Each story seems to dictate its own rules. If I did have a constant, it would probably be that I always try to write my stories from the point of view of the ordinary people in whatever world it happens to be.
hmmm i have two thoughts on this. the first time i wrote something with magic, it didn;t turn out well. i created this whole fantstical-element to my world, where magic was an everyday thing, kind of harry potter-esque...and i couldn;t keep it up. i didn;t feel comfortable writing magic into my story where it centered around certain "powers" and "objects" of magic. i dunno. the magic didn't seem an ingrained part of the characters although it was part of the world. it was like i was trying to force this magic on my characters, and they didn;t really want it [img]http://s3.images.proboards.com/tongue.gif" alt=":P" border="0"/>
the second attempt i feel is going better - i'm still working on it so thats a good indication! this time though, the magic i am using is more intuitive magic, something that is more a part of the characters, rather than an extra ability or talent they have. magic is again a part of life in this story, but it is less the fantastical magic and more natural magic. i'm not sure if that makes sense to anyone, but it the magic and the use of magic seems to make more sense to the story this time around becuase alot of it is mythologically and, to an extent, religiously based. i dunno if you read my piece for Prodders or not Flit, but thats the one i am talking about here. magic has a natural place in this world, whereas it didn;t really seem to "fit" with the other one...
i think that, whenever you write magic into a piece, it needs to feel realistic within the confines of the story, the characters and the world you have created. thats been my experience anyways [img]http://s3.images.proboards.com/smiley.gif" alt=":)" border="0"/>
Keeper of the Sherbet Lemons
17 years ago
Keeper of the Sherbet Lemons
Guildmember
Well obviously that's the case, Mystrikat, and that goes with everything, i would have thought. You always write to the confines of the story. What i was talking about wasn't magic specifically, that was just the example i used. It's like.... mmm.... IC! I'm just currently reading Alyzon Whitestarr (so don't give away the ending [img]http://s3.images.proboards.com/tongue.gif" alt=":P" border="0"/> this isn't a spoiler thread) And it appears that the magic she is using in that has an element of communication with animals. I just know she's gonna drag back in animal rights (what hasn't she tried to go over in that book) talking to animals and animal rights? is that sounding a bit like Ober...
Her characters are vegetarian, that's another thing she's brought across from her other stories. Another kind of 'rule'. So that's what i was getting at, is there something in your stories that you always bring across, and if not always, than most of the time. I couldn't find anything in my stories that stays the same, except maybe the sarcastic character. I always seem to work in one character who can't say anything serious to save their life.
So is there anything you keep the same?
[img]http://s3.images.proboards.com/cheesy.gif" alt=":D" border="0"/>
Some authors do have hobby horses, don't they?
I get what you mean now... I still think my answer is no. I can't think of anything that I deliberately keep continuous between stories. I mean, I definately have a style, but I don't think I have rules, per se. I think I enjoy writing the most about self-discovery, so I guess if there is anything I use a lot, it's the sense that a character has something to learn, either about themselves, their history or the world around them. I think that's largely because it took me personally so long to work out what I was about. Which isn't that uncommon really - IC bases a lot of her characters on herself - her own ideas and beleifs come through very strongly. It's something a lot of authors do.
Interesting [img]http://s3.images.proboards.com/smiley.gif" alt=":-)" border="0"/>
I'd find it difficult to say definitely. When I abandon a story, I tend to snatch things I like from it and drag them into something else - characters, names, cities, physical descriptions. That involves a lot of accidental bleeding between stories, because characters and cities etc don't tend to come without any context adhering to them.
But I suppose I do have a few constants.
1) My names are always somewhere between ordinary and fantastical. I like to use vaguely unusual names that wouldn't make you blink if you were introduced to one, or ordinary names changed slightly. Things like Josa and Ceres and Laine, rather than Anphitatria or Bellarine.
2) I always use casual dialogue. Obviously there's some slang I can only include if it's a real world story, but I never use high or formal speech, or accented dialect (Highlanderspeech etc.)
3) My magic, if it exists, is always small-scale and limited, and it's never an accepted part of life. That's not been a deliberate choice, but it's always been true. I haven't written a college-of-magic style story since I was thirteen.
Um...
4) OK, I don't actually like this constant much, but: My protagonist is nearly always an unremarkable, somewhat colourless character observing the more interesting, extreme personalities around them. But I'm trying to kick that habit.
5) My stories are always small stories. I haven't written a world-scale epic since, again, I was about thirteen.
6) The central parts of my stories are always the relationships the characters have with each other. Except for short stories and kids' stuff, there's also always a love story involved.
I think that's all.
[img]http://s3.images.proboards.com/smiley.gif" alt=":-)" border="0"/>
Blindmouse
I always always, somewhere in a story/play have a character called "Rob", or some variation on that theme. This is because I did it accidentally at first, and now it's become a sort of in-joke.
Other than that, I'll need to think. I'll come back.
i'm not sure i keep anything consistent from story to story...i guess i always make a conscious effort to keep my characters slightly flawed - i don't like the idea of a "perfect" person. and as i write fantasy, i go for crazy names (i love baby name books!) and i have always gone for that whole 'whats in a name?' thing. i will search for names that really relate to my characters strengths/major personality traits. i don;t know why i do that...
i guess the biggest thing i do is try to keep constant it to express a part of my own spirituality in my stories. this is surprisingly easy to do i have found. i don't select one character and have them be the epitome of what i believe, but more like, i ingrain my beliefs in the world i am creating. i guess every author does that to an extent -its the main part of creation and representation and meaning.
LOL, so much of me goes into a story without me realising sometimes that it scares me! My plotlines nearly always end up being political in some way, or at least making some kind of commentary about how my own political views.
I always seem to end up in my stories as well. I don't know if it's accidental, but there's usually at least one minor character who is saying and doing exactly what I would say or do in every instance. *sn!gger*
And now that you know that you'll all be looking for me won't you? [img]http://s3.images.proboards.com/tongue.gif" alt=":P" border="0"/>
I'm not a very good writer in that I can't analyse what I do very well. I just do it. Then I read back later and think, oh, that was an interesting choice...
Aug 26, 2006, 1:13am[/url], Frozen Turkey[/url] wrote:I always seem to end up in my stories as well. I don't know if it's accidental, but there's usually at least one minor character who is saying and doing exactly what I would say or do in every instance. *sn!gger*.[/quote]
me too! it may not be a huge part of me, what i would consider a strong personality trait, but i end up in there somehow. it usually emerges as a dark desire or dark thought that i have about something, that i would never in reality act upon.
it scares me too when i read my work back and come to the realisation that such-and-such character has a part of me in them.
but i guess that one of the beautiful things about writing - you can do that, write yourself and your wildest thoughts into another character and have them act it out, and its totally harmless. thats one of the reasons why i write poetry - when i am angry about something, or feeling hurt, instead of raging at a particular person, i write it out, and am then able to talk rationally to that person about the issue.
argh but it's worse than that MK.
I think every character has a bit of the author in them, even if it's the dark bits that you don't want to admit to. In order to create something, and understand them enough to write them, there has to be something of you in them somewhere. Even if it's something you want to be rather than something you are.
In my case, that certainly happens, but what also happens is that there will be some wise-cracking idiot jumping around threatening to eat people. *sigh* which I suppose is me....:p
PMSL at a vision of Turks jumping around threatening to eat people!
i definately agree with what you said. i think it cannot be avoided, no matter how hard you may try. i have said at times - okay, these characters will be nothing like me or anyone i know - but it never happens. i mean, when it comes to creating characters, you have your archetypes you can build on, and once you start fleshing them out, bits of you are going to become bits of them. its kind of inevitable i guess.
the same with themes and issues. for me, this is the part of my stories where i come through really strong, and that cannot be helped either. if writing is an expression of thought, will and desire (to name a few) then the author's personal views are going to emerge. what we, as readers, do with them after that is up to us. sometimes i will read something and nothing in it will really resonate with me, so i take it as the author's views and not mine at all. but then with books that express a view i share, the author's view also becomes my view.
i just loved doing Death of the Author at uni! it honestly opened up a whole new way of looking at the practise of reading for me. i hadn't really, up to that point, been aware of the extent that a reader brings themselves into a text.
okay, rambling...its very late now...
