advice from an editor I don't agree with (1st vs. 3rd person)
Jay Swartzfeger
I joined OWW (http://sff.onlinewritingworkshop.com/) a few weeks ago
and find it to be more helpful and informative than critters. I
usually receive more critiques at Critters (20+), but the quality of
reviews at OWW seems higher.
Anyway, I was sifting through their resource section today and read
this following piece of advice from an editor on why rookies should
avoid 1st person:
http://sff.onlinewritingworkshop.com/tips/shapiro.shtml
One of the reasons she suggests avoiding 1st is because of doozies
like this:
"I looked in the mirror and ran the comb once more through my long,
curly red hair. My green eyes looked unusually bright."
On one hand, I see her point. It's easy for a total newbie to make
observations in 1st person that are clunky and infodumpy. However,
changing those sentences to 3rd person doesn't make it any better --
it still screams amateur. Whenever I start reading descriptions of
hair, eyes etc it's usually groan-inducing whether it's 1st or 3rd.
I guess this article hit a nerve with me because I unsuccessfully
tried writing in 3rd for years with almost no success. 3rd, in my
amateur hands, was always stilted, distant and lifeless. It wasn't
until I switched to 1st person that I started to feel like I was
making progress.
Now that I've spent the last year writing in 1st, I can go back and
muddle my way through 3rd with varying degrees of success. It still
never feels as easy to write as 1st, however.
Any thoughts on that article?
--
Jay Swartzfeger
Scottsdale, AZ
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)
> On one hand, I see her point. It's easy for a total newbie to make
> observations in 1st person that are clunky and infodumpy. However,
> changing those sentences to 3rd person doesn't make it any better --
> it still screams amateur. Whenever I start reading descriptions of
> hair, eyes etc it's usually groan-inducing whether it's 1st or 3rd.
Heh. I have a remarkably difficult time getting descriptions into
stories in general. The thing I'm working on is atypical not only in
having the physical descriptions matter (family resemblances being a
significant part of the subtext) but in giving me a smooth way of pretty
thoroughly describing both the primary narrator (first person) and his
partner.
I think description in general is something that's fairly difficult to
handle. Successful stories run the gamut from very sparse to
spends-two-pages-describing-a-hat. A great deal depends on the voice,
and finding a narrative voice that can plausibly go around giving
physical descriptions of everyone is, I've found, fairly difficult.
(Hence, I'd tend to suspect, it inducing groans.)
--
Heather Anne Nicoll - Darkhawk - http://aelfhame.net/~darkhawk/
They are one person, they are two alone
They are three together, they are for each other.
- "Helplessly Hoping", Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young
Dorothy J Heydt
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll) <dark...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Jay Swartzfeger <jswart...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On one hand, I see her point. It's easy for a total newbie to make
>> observations in 1st person that are clunky and infodumpy. However,
>> changing those sentences to 3rd person doesn't make it any better --
>> it still screams amateur. Whenever I start reading descriptions of
>> hair, eyes etc it's usually groan-inducing whether it's 1st or 3rd.
>
>Heh. I have a remarkably difficult time getting descriptions into
>stories in general.
You don't *need* to describe your characters, you know. Many
fine authors don't. I just finished rereading one of Jane
Haddam's whodunit and, on leafing back through the text,
discovered that one of the interesting characters was not
described *at*all* except that she's about to turn thirty and her
rotten boyfriend says she has a big butt. (But he says everyone
he doesn't like has a big butt, as she realizes upon the same
page, and a page or two later she dumps him, his friends, and his
lifestyle, and though she's a minor character for the rest of the
book, everything steadily improves for her.)
And Isaac Asimov rarely described anybody. "Isaac, you really
ought to describe people more. What color is his hair? What
shape is his nose?" "Nose? My character has a nose?"
He did an interesting experiment on the subject once. He'd just
turned in the MS. of a novel, and several of the house editors,
all female, got onto his case about never describing characters.
He said simply, "What does {name of female character} look like?"
Each editor described herself.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)
> In article <1fy77bg.1hl9ktx13a010vN%dark...@mindspring.com>,
> Darkhawk (H. Nicoll) <dark...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >Heh. I have a remarkably difficult time getting descriptions into
> >stories in general.
>
> You don't *need* to describe your characters, you know.
That depends on the story you're telling, you know.
Dorothy J Heydt
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll) <dark...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>> In article <1fy77bg.1hl9ktx13a010vN%dark...@mindspring.com>,
>> Darkhawk (H. Nicoll) <dark...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> >Heh. I have a remarkably difficult time getting descriptions into
>> >stories in general.
>>
>> You don't *need* to describe your characters, you know.
>
>That depends on the story you're telling, you know.
Perhaps it does. Can you give me an example of a story where you
*do* have to describe the characters? Well, let's see, there's
_The Hunchback of Notre Dame,_ and ... uh ....
Peter Knutsen
Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> You don't *need* to describe your characters, you know. Many
Sometimes a description gives the reader important information about a
character, information, which helps to make later events more
plausible. It is even possible that a description in one story serves
to support deeds or events in a *later* story.
In the later case, you could, in theory, postpone describing the
character until you reach the story where the physical trait becomes
relevant, but I'm concerned that by that point, the reader has already
formed a mental picture of the character, so if the character is
suddenly described in some way that disagrees with the reader's mental
picture, there's trouble.
Important traits can relate to performance, as in the character being
unusually strong or weak, overweight or skinny, or moving gracefully
or very swiftly. Pure appearance trait can affect how others treat the
character. Some people have fetisches dealing not with gas masks or
fur coats but with particular types of appearances (or voices, or
walking styles). It's possible to establish, in one story, a woman who
has short, blonde, curly hair and brown eyes, then establish in a
second story a man who has a great fondness for women who look that
way. In a third story they meet. Someone who has read the two previous
stories will have extra fun anticipating the first encounter.
The POV character can also be characterized by the way he reacts to
how people look. But you can only get that through to the reader if
you actually provide some description of the how people he meets look,
otherwise it can very easily seem, to some readers, as if he is
arbitrary, because he would never narrate his actual feelings or
reactions, only his behaviour and mode of speech. If you are able to
describe people then you can gradually show the reader a pattern of
the POW character behaving badly towards red-haired people, never
saying it directly but by showing it consistently so that the reader
can infer it himself, perhaps halfway into the story.
> fine authors don't. I just finished rereading one of Jane
[...]
What *kinds* of stories do they write? I think they write stories that
are limited in some way, because they always and unfallingly exclude
certain aspects of life, certain kinds of diversity. There's nothing
wrong with that, per se, but I like having the ability to range free,
to invent all sorts of characters, including ones that are very odd,
look very odd, or look so typical that it's downright unusual.
> Dorothy J. Heydt
--
Peter Knutsen
Nicola Browne
news:9cfe678b.03071...@posting.google.com
>.
>
> Any thoughts on that article?
>
I don't know how you can say whats easy or hard as
it varies so hugely from person to person. I haven't written a
first person narrative yet because of the practical difficulties
of telling a whole story from one perspective. I often begin by
writing in first person when I'm first coming with an idea and a
character,but switch within a few paragraphs to tight third
(which is almost as limiting )usually because
I'm not quite happy with the voice. I think the voice has to be
compelling if you're going to spend a whole novel listening to it.
I can only sustain my own interest in first person for relatively
short passages and find it easier, as a relative beginner, to have two
viewpoint characters, but that's probably personal.
It takes skill to indicate an unreliable first person narrator and I've
seen that done badly by very experienced writers but then I think it
takes skill to write well in any view point. If a story
comes to you as a first person narrative I think thats the way you
should write it - there are drawbacks and limitations to any viewpoint
and
describing the narrator is, frankly, the least of your worries.
Nicky
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Mary Gentle
jswart...@cox.net (Jay Swartzfeger) wrote:
Well, she starts off by saying
>Many inexperienced writers choose to write in the first person under the
>mistaken impression that it will make characterization easier.
but curly green hair and bright red eyes, or whatever, aren't
characterisation [1], they're description.
First versus third doesn't really come in to that one, I think; it's
finding a point in the text where it _matters_ what the person looks like.
Then, if it's "Good grief, you can't be a spy, I recognised you a hundred
yards away by your big nose", or "You'll never marry the Princess while
you've got webbed feet", there isn't a problem getting the necessary info
in. Or no more of a problem than any other plot-point.
Mild versions of it will do -- he didn't have time to shave before he came
out, he wonders if his stubble is visible because his hair is dark and it
really shows up; she's got to choose a dress for a social occasion and
wonders if you can wear pink with her shade of blonde hair. She has to
ask someone to reach her a packet from a supermarket top shelf; he has to
adjust the car seat back to drive in comfort. It all adds up to a person
in the end.
Mind you, if you want the reader to know what the character looks like on
page one, that's no more (or less) difficult in first than third. As you
say, you just write it _better_ than that appalling example.
I thought that this was interesting:
>There have been a number of popular series in which the author uses first
>person in every book. If you look closely at these, often the narrative
>voice is interchangeable from one book to another; [...]
>What these authors have done is to hit upon a voice that readers resonate
>to. Their fans like that voice so much, along with the books' plots, that
>they don't mind that all the protagonists are essentially the same
>person. Finding a voice like that is nearly impossible to do by design.
I'm moved to wonder (assuming it's true) how she thinks the person 'hit
on' the resonating voice, if it wasn't by design. Does she think the
Tooth Fairy came along and left it under the pillow?
Depends on her definition of 'by design', I guess...
It doesn't seem to me this is necessarily a first/third dichotomy, either.
Finding the 'voice' for something doesn't _have_ to relate to what person
it's in. And I don't see why first person protagonists should be any more
interchangeable by nature than third person protagonists.
I can appreciate she's probably seen too much badly-written fiction, but I
don't think she's got the right cure for that particular disease. There
may well be some identifiable clunkers in first-person -- though I think
she's made a mess of identifying just what they are -- but lord knows it's
no less easy to write seriously bad third person...
Mary
[1] Not necessarily, they're not. You could make them into it, though.
Mary Gentle
pe...@knutsen.dk (Peter Knutsen) wrote:
[...]
> In the later case, you could, in theory, postpone describing the
> character until you reach the story where the physical trait becomes
> relevant, but I'm concerned that by that point, the reader has already
> formed a mental picture of the character, so if the character is
> suddenly described in some way that disagrees with the reader's mental
> picture, there's trouble.
It occurs to me that this happens -- it happens with me, when I'm reading
-- but I don't know how it happens. If there's no overt description, and
not much covert, either, how is it one gets these ideas?
I'm not just thinking of purely individual reactions drawn from one's own
experience, along the lines of "every man called Sam is blond", or
"Veronicas are bitchy", or whatever. But the way in which you can be
/convinced/ of a character's 'wrong' appearance, and even when the author
finally comes clean on p.203, the reader doesn't believe it. It's very
odd.
Mary
Mary Gentle
wrote:
> In article <1fy7ad9.7ipbzo16tie2lN%dark...@mindspring.com>,
> Darkhawk (H. Nicoll) <dark...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
> >> In article <1fy77bg.1hl9ktx13a010vN%dark...@mindspring.com>,
> >> Darkhawk (H. Nicoll) <dark...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >Heh. I have a remarkably difficult time getting descriptions into
> >> >stories in general.
> >>
> >> You don't *need* to describe your characters, you know.
> >
> >That depends on the story you're telling, you know.
>
> Perhaps it does. Can you give me an example of a story where you
> *do* have to describe the characters? Well, let's see, there's
> _The Hunchback of Notre Dame,_ and ... uh ....
Cyrano de Bergerac. :)
Mary
Dorothy J Heydt
Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk> wrote:
I said, Many
>> fine authors don't. I just finished rereading one of Jane
>[...]
>
>What *kinds* of stories do they write? I think they write stories that
>are limited in some way, because they always and unfallingly exclude
>certain aspects of life, certain kinds of diversity. There's nothing
>wrong with that, per se, but I like having the ability to range free,
>to invent all sorts of characters, including ones that are very odd,
>look very odd, or look so typical that it's downright unusual.
Well, I don't think I have to tell you what kind of stories
Asimov wrote. Lots of kinds, mostly SF and murder mysteries and
SF murder mysteries. And histories and biographies and
autobiographies. Many people consider many of his works very
good.
Haddam writes murder mysteries, good ones. She does describe
some of the characters: her series detective is big, middle-aged,
slightly overweight, and Middle-Eastern-looking. She usually
describes when a character is horribly unhealthily fat or
horribly unhealthily thin. Hmmm. She mentions that one elderly
woman has always been the not-pretty one in her crowd, ever since
her schooldays, because it's shaped her character. But by and
large she prefers to describe the character's, um, character, not
her appearance, and she does that mostly by letting the character
act according to her self-image and habits.
So I'll reshape my statement just slightly: *One* does not have
to describe one's characters, though it's possible you personally
do.
GJP [aka MamaG]
Especially when the description is what I call the Snow White
syndrome - fair skin is 'snow white', dark hair is 'jet
black' or 'ebony', red hair is 'flaming', blue eyes are 'icy',
green eyes are 'jade', etc., ad nauseum.
--
GJP
Mary K. Kuhner
> http://sff.onlinewritingworkshop.com/tips/shapiro.shtml
[why beginners should avoid first-person]
I really didn't care for this; it seemed shallow and muddled.
(As the other Mary said, physical description is not
characterization!)
Whether first or third will be easier depends on the writer
and the story (and the specific market, but I'd worry about the
first two). Some stories have such a natural choice that it
will be practically impossible to make them work in the other
person. A lot of the stories in Calvino's _Cosmicomics_ strike
me as utterly impossible in third person.
There are pitfalls in starting with first: you might sound
like yourself all the time, you might find it awkward to
introduce certain kinds of information, you might be self-
indulgent about detail inclusion. On the other hand, there are
pitfalls in starting with third. And on the gripping hand,
you can always figure on falling into, and climbing out of,
a certain number of pitfalls in the course of learning to do it
right.
The argument about bestsellers with a repetitive voice sounds
almost like sour grapes; it's certainly not a "don't do this,
it doesn't work" argument. Anyway the author I most associate
with writing the same story over and over (Eddings) writes in
third.
It's worth looking at Zelazny's _Nine Princes in Amber_ which
has sections from Corwin's and Random's 1st person POV; they
are rather similar people in a lot of ways; their situations
are similar; but the voices are distinct.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
Dorothy J Heydt
Nicola Browne <nicky.m...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
> I don't know how you can say what's easy or hard as
> it varies so hugely from person to person.
True enough.
I haven't written a
>first person narrative yet because of the practical difficulties
>of telling a whole story from one perspective.
I haven't written much in first-person either, and I never asked
myself why till this very moment. I think it's perhaps because
the character is never *me*.
On the other hand I frequently write in very tight third-person,
and the story is from that one character's perspective, just
using third-person pronouns. Leavened with the occasional
paragraph of generalized description (of setting or situation,
more often than characters).
Dorothy J Heydt
Mary Gentle <mary_...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>There have been a number of popular series in which the author uses first
>>person in every book. If you look closely at these, often the narrative
>>voice is interchangeable from one book to another; [...]
>>What these authors have done is to hit upon a voice that readers resonate
>>to. Their fans like that voice so much, along with the books' plots, that
>>they don't mind that all the protagonists are essentially the same
>>person. Finding a voice like that is nearly impossible to do by design.
>
>I'm moved to wonder (assuming it's true) how she thinks the person 'hit
>on' the resonating voice, if it wasn't by design. Does she think the
>Tooth Fairy came along and left it under the pillow?
Maybe. Or other versions of saying "it just came naturally."
God, He knows that I never worked at having a voice of any kind,
and yet one or two people have told me I've got one.
Dorothy J Heydt
>> *do* have to describe the characters? Well, let's see, there's
>> _The Hunchback of Notre Dame,_ and ... uh ....
>
>Cyrano de Bergerac. :)
Very good. That's two.
And Miles Vorkosigan is probably a third, though you don't really
need to know any more about his physical description than that
he's short and fragile. Is he fair or dark? Long or short nose?
Blue or brown eyes? Do we know? (I dunno.) Do we need to know?
(No.) Do I care? (No.)
There must be some more.
David Bilek
>In article <memo.2003071...@roxanne.morgan.ntlworld.com>,
>Mary Gentle <mary_...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <HI511...@kithrup.com>, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps it does. Can you give me an example of a story where you
>>> *do* have to describe the characters? Well, let's see, there's
>>> _The Hunchback of Notre Dame,_ and ... uh ....
>>
>>Cyrano de Bergerac. :)
>
>Very good. That's two.
>
>And Miles Vorkosigan is probably a third, though you don't really
>need to know any more about his physical description than that
>he's short and fragile. Is he fair or dark? Long or short nose?
>Blue or brown eyes? Do we know? (I dunno.) Do we need to know?
>(No.) Do I care? (No.)
>
>There must be some more.
>
The appearence of various characters is crucial in GRRM's _A Song of
Ice and Fire_. Jon Snow, Tyrion, the various bastards of Robert
Baratheon, Joffrey and his siblings.
-David
Wildepad
wrote:
>Anyway, I was sifting through their resource section today and read
>this following piece of advice from an editor on why rookies should
>avoid 1st person:
>
>I guess this article hit a nerve with me because I unsuccessfully
>tried writing in 3rd for years with almost no success. 3rd, in my
>amateur hands, was always stilted, distant and lifeless. It wasn't
>until I switched to 1st person that I started to feel like I was
>making progress.
>
>Now that I've spent the last year writing in 1st, I can go back and
>muddle my way through 3rd with varying degrees of success. It still
>never feels as easy to write as 1st, however.
>
>Any thoughts on that article?
Thoughts not specific to the article but to such things in general:
they're general.
Using first person as a path to characterization is a classic newbie
mistake. The person that wrote that article had to come down hard on
using first person in order to reach their audience. They couldn't
have said: "don't use first person unless you're good at it" because
all newbies think they're good[1].
Just like the old saying: "Jerks are like vampires, you hold up a
mirror and they don't see anything," you have to make your statements
blanket and your rules hard and fast otherwise no one will see
themselves as needing your advice or will squirm around creating the
most outlandish justifications for their scribblings.
A real writer doesn't have to worry about such things -- they're going
to keep writing, no matter what, and find what works, and what doesn't
work, for them. Such articles can contain valuable information and
insight, you just have to learn how to fit it into your own world and
accept or reject it based on whether or not it works for you.
[1] Generalized statement which isn't supported by the load of
annecdotal evidence which magically appears whenever uses words like
"all", "none", "always", "never", etc. in a Usenet post.
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> Any thoughts on that article?
What I find wrong-headed about this article is something far profounder
than the choice of person.
"To write successfully in the first person requires a high level of
skill and, usually, experience. If you're just starting out, stick
with the third person. Trust me, it'll be easier. "
Yes. It might be easier. But getting good at writing doesn't mean doing
the easy thing. It means doing the difficult thing _well_. And the easy
thing. It's not as if publishers are going to start publishing you when
you're so-and-so and then wait for you to get better.
Finding the right voice is impossible to do by design? Well, finding the
right voice is, if not what writing is all about, at least a very good
part of it. If you can't do it, first or third person isn't going to
make any difference.
--
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan - ada...@despammed.com - this is a valid address
homepage: http://www.fantascienza.net/sfpeople/elethiomel
English blog: http://annafdd.blogspot.com/
Blog in italiano: http://fulminiesaette.blogspot.com
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
What I'd really like is to be able to have two, distinct. People point
at my stuff in multiple third and tell me sternly that the voices are
all the same. I cringe in shame, but I just don't know what to do about
it.
Dan Goodman
news:9cfe678b.03071...@posting.google.com:
> Hi all,
>
> I joined OWW (http://sff.onlinewritingworkshop.com/) a few weeks ago
> and find it to be more helpful and informative than critters. I
> usually receive more critiques at Critters (20+), but the quality of
> reviews at OWW seems higher.
>
> Anyway, I was sifting through their resource section today and read
> this following piece of advice from an editor on why rookies should
> avoid 1st person:
>
> http://sff.onlinewritingworkshop.com/tips/shapiro.shtml
>
> One of the reasons she suggests avoiding 1st is because of doozies
> like this:
>
> "I looked in the mirror and ran the comb once more through my long,
> curly red hair. My green eyes looked unusually bright."
>
> On one hand, I see her point. It's easy for a total newbie to make
> observations in 1st person that are clunky and infodumpy. However,
> changing those sentences to 3rd person doesn't make it any better --
> it still screams amateur. Whenever I start reading descriptions of
> hair, eyes etc it's usually groan-inducing whether it's 1st or 3rd.
There's a nice, simple rule that prevents such mistakes: Describe what
the viewpoint character would notice.
I formulated this after workshopping
1) a story in which someone raised on a farm notices a field of grain. I
would expect such a character to notice _what_ grain was being grown.
2) a story in which a soldier /past his pull date/ recently discharged
arrives at his home planet and notices that the customs/immigration
officials are wearing uniforms. Seems to me that someone just out of the
military would notice _some_ details about the uniforms.
> I guess this article hit a nerve with me because I unsuccessfully
> tried writing in 3rd for years with almost no success. 3rd, in my
> amateur hands, was always stilted, distant and lifeless. It wasn't
> until I switched to 1st person that I started to feel like I was
> making progress.
I've found that writing advice which I think is wrong is helpful -- once
I figure out why it seems wrong.
> Now that I've spent the last year writing in 1st, I can go back and
> muddle my way through 3rd with varying degrees of success. It still
> never feels as easy to write as 1st, however.
>
> Any thoughts on that article?
Don't submit first-person novels to Del Rey, till that editor has retired
or moved elsewhere.
By the way, she doesn't seem to have made any fiction sales.
--
Dan Goodman dsg...@visi.com
Journal: http://dsgood.blogspot.com
Lucinda Welenc
> Hi all,
>
> I joined OWW (http://sff.onlinewritingworkshop.com/) a few weeks ago
> and find it to be more helpful and informative than critters. I
> usually receive more critiques at Critters (20+), but the quality of
> reviews at OWW seems higher.
>
> Anyway, I was sifting through their resource section today and read
> this following piece of advice from an editor on why rookies should
> avoid 1st person:
>
> http://sff.onlinewritingworkshop.com/tips/shapiro.shtml
>
> One of the reasons she suggests avoiding 1st is because of doozies
> like this:
>
> "I looked in the mirror and ran the comb once more through my long,
> curly red hair. My green eyes looked unusually bright."
>
> On one hand, I see her point. It's easy for a total newbie to make
> observations in 1st person that are clunky and infodumpy. However,
Same observation, hopefully non-infodumpy:
(diary format)
Debbie came over today. She's still trying to convince me to "do
something" about my hair. She says, "Women our age--" Our age, my foot!
She's older than I am, in her mid 50's, at least. "Women our age
shouldn't wear their hair in butt-length braids. If you'd just let me
cut it short and put a nice red rinse in it--" I cut her off there with
a comment that I *like* the gray hairs. They contrast so nicely with
the brown.
> changing those sentences to 3rd person doesn't make it any better --
> it still screams amateur. Whenever I start reading descriptions of
> hair, eyes etc it's usually groan-inducing whether it's 1st or 3rd.
>
> I guess this article hit a nerve with me because I unsuccessfully
> tried writing in 3rd for years with almost no success. 3rd, in my
> amateur hands, was always stilted, distant and lifeless. It wasn't
> until I switched to 1st person that I started to feel like I was
> making progress.
>
> Now that I've spent the last year writing in 1st, I can go back and
> muddle my way through 3rd with varying degrees of success. It still
> never feels as easy to write as 1st, however.
>
> Any thoughts on that article?
Turkey City Lexicon.
--
Alanna/Lucinda
**********
Saying of the day:
I've never understood people who don't have prehensile toes.
Julia Jones
<o...@uniserve.com> writes
>In <HI54r...@kithrup.com>,
> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> onsendan:
>
>It would be nice if characters sometimes came with slightly less
>_eccentric_ voices, but characters certainly do come with voices.
>
Oh yes. Having a very rude running commentary in Strine going in my head
the last time I read Lord of the Rings was an interesting experience.
One I could have probably done without, but interesting. Bruce is
definitely one of the livelier voices in my head...
--
Julia Jones
The suespammers.org mail server is located in California; do not send
unsolicited bulk e-mail or unsolicited commercial e-mail to my suespammers.org
address.
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> In <1fy78sl.ixris531g8swN%ada...@spamcop.net>,
> Anna Feruglio Dal Dan <ada...@spamcop.net> onsendan:
> > What I'd really like is to be able to have two, distinct. People point
> > at my stuff in multiple third and tell me sternly that the voices are
> > all the same. I cringe in shame, but I just don't know what to do about
> > it.
>
> How do they filter for significance?
>
> Aka, "what's essential?"
>
> A character who is a skilled sword fighter will see hands, balance,
> hilts of weapons, degree of relaxation in faces, height and tension of
> shoulders; a character who is an accountant might notice the buckles on
> their shoes and the presumed degree of social standing to decide whether
> or not to get out of the way.
>
> This extends into what the characters say, too, though how that works
> for me is sufficiently unconscious that I'm not sure how to explain
> _how_ it does that.
No, I wasn't referring to anything specific in the content; it's just a
question of voice, of how a character _feels_. I just have one voice,
though of course I have different POV with different views, experiences,
emotions, interests and so on.
It's hard to explain. Actually, it's hard for me to point at clear
examples of different voices in other people's fiction. Does George
Martin comes across with different voices for his different characters?
I'm not sure.
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> Using first person as a path to characterization is a classic newbie
> mistake. The person that wrote that article had to come down hard on
> using first person in order to reach their audience. They couldn't
> have said: "don't use first person unless you're good at it" because
> all newbies think they're good[1].
You don't learn by not doing. She might just as well have said "Don't
write, because it's difficult, and you're likely to do it badly." Of
course. Newbie will do it badly. The trick is improving. And you improve
by doing. Some won't, but some will.
David Bilek
>Darkhawk (H. Nicoll) <dark...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>> In article <1fy77bg.1hl9ktx13a010vN%dark...@mindspring.com>,
>>> Darkhawk (H. Nicoll) <dark...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >Heh. I have a remarkably difficult time getting descriptions into
>>> >stories in general.
>>>
>>> You don't *need* to describe your characters, you know.
>>
>>That depends on the story you're telling, you know.
>
>Perhaps it does. Can you give me an example of a story where you
>*do* have to describe the characters? Well, let's see, there's
>_The Hunchback of Notre Dame,_ and ... uh ....
>
George R.R. Martin's _A Song of Ice and Fire_. Character's appearance
is often absolutely crucial.
-David
David Bilek
>Darkhawk (H. Nicoll) <dark...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>> In article <1fy77bg.1hl9ktx13a010vN%dark...@mindspring.com>,
>>> Darkhawk (H. Nicoll) <dark...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >Heh. I have a remarkably difficult time getting descriptions into
>>> >stories in general.
>>>
>>> You don't *need* to describe your characters, you know.
>>
>>That depends on the story you're telling, you know.
>
>Perhaps it does. Can you give me an example of a story where you
>*do* have to describe the characters? Well, let's see, there's
>_The Hunchback of Notre Dame,_ and ... uh ....
>
George R.R. Martin's _A Song of Ice and Fire_. Character appearance
David Bilek
>Darkhawk (H. Nicoll) <dark...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>> In article <1fy77bg.1hl9ktx13a010vN%dark...@mindspring.com>,
>>> Darkhawk (H. Nicoll) <dark...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >Heh. I have a remarkably difficult time getting descriptions into
>>> >stories in general.
>>>
>>> You don't *need* to describe your characters, you know.
>>
>>That depends on the story you're telling, you know.
>
>Perhaps it does. Can you give me an example of a story where you
>*do* have to describe the characters? Well, let's see, there's
>_The Hunchback of Notre Dame,_ and ... uh ....
>
George R.R. Martin's _A Song of Ice and Fire_. Character appearance
David Bilek
And I wrote it 3 times!
Sorry, my news server kept rejecting this post. And I tried to send
it more than 3 times. Which means y'all might get to read this
sterling bit of wisdom over and over and over...
I apologize in advance if it spams the newsgroup.
-David
David Bilek
>Darkhawk (H. Nicoll) <dark...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>> In article <1fy77bg.1hl9ktx13a010vN%dark...@mindspring.com>,
>>> Darkhawk (H. Nicoll) <dark...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >Heh. I have a remarkably difficult time getting descriptions into
>>> >stories in general.
>>>
>>> You don't *need* to describe your characters, you know.
>>
>>That depends on the story you're telling, you know.
>
>Perhaps it does. Can you give me an example of a story where you
>*do* have to describe the characters? Well, let's see, there's
>_The Hunchback of Notre Dame,_ and ... uh ....
>
George R.R. Martin's _A Song of Ice and Fire_. Character appearance
is absolutely crucial.
-David
David Bilek
is often absolutely crucial.
-David
David Bilek
Manny Olds
> In article <1fy7ad9.7ipbzo16tie2lN%dark...@mindspring.com>,
> Darkhawk (H. Nicoll) <dark...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>> In article <1fy77bg.1hl9ktx13a010vN%dark...@mindspring.com>,
>>> Darkhawk (H. Nicoll) <dark...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >Heh. I have a remarkably difficult time getting descriptions into
>>> >stories in general.
>>>
>>> You don't *need* to describe your characters, you know.
>>
>>That depends on the story you're telling, you know.
> Perhaps it does. Can you give me an example of a story where you
> *do* have to describe the characters? Well, let's see, there's
> _The Hunchback of Notre Dame,_ and ... uh ....
_The Princess Bride_
--
Manny Olds (old...@pobox.com) of Riverdale Park, Maryland, USA
"Historians have learned to treat historical evidence differently from
archaeological or paleontological evidence, to acknowledge that the gaps
in historical evidence often have something to do with the fact that
humans write about what interests them and what they think is important."
-- Michael Shermer
Brenda W. Clough
>In article <1fy7ad9.7ipbzo16tie2lN%dark...@mindspring.com>,
>Darkhawk (H. Nicoll) <dark...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <1fy77bg.1hl9ktx13a010vN%dark...@mindspring.com>,
>>>Darkhawk (H. Nicoll) <dark...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Heh. I have a remarkably difficult time getting descriptions into
>>>>stories in general.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>You don't *need* to describe your characters, you know.
>>>
>>>
>>That depends on the story you're telling, you know.
>>
>>
>
>Perhaps it does. Can you give me an example of a story where you
>*do* have to describe the characters? Well, let's see, there's
>_The Hunchback of Notre Dame,_ and ... uh ....
>
>
I read a manuscript by a writer from Britain. In an effort to have a
realistically American hero, he named the character Austin. No
description whatsoever. Unluckily for him, that very week Mike Meyers
had zoomed to stardom in AUSTIN POWERS, INTERNATIONAL MAN OF MYSTERY. I
paged through the tale of (fictional) Austin's misery and angst, unable
to prevent myself from visualizing him in a dark maroon velveteen
Edwardian suit with lace at the cuffs, and horn rims and buck teeth,
unvoiced exclamations of "Shagadelic, baby!" ringing in my ears.
Brenda
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough
Read my novella "May Be Some Time"
Complete at http://www.fictionwise.com
My web page is at http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/
Dorothy J Heydt
>> Perhaps it does. Can you give me an example of a story where you
>> *do* have to describe the characters? Well, let's see, there's
>> _The Hunchback of Notre Dame,_ and ... uh ....
>
>_The Princess Bride_
I have read that, but long ago, and needles under my nails
wouldn't make me read it again. Can you sum up in a few words
character description is crucial there?
Dorothy J Heydt
I think you are the second person who has said that; one more and
i will have to believe it's true. I am unable to read Martin so
I'd have to take your word in any case.
Can you sum up in a few words why the character's appearance is
crucial? Though I can't read Martin I know he's a good enough
writer that he's not committing the color-code sins so lavishly
described in the _Tough Guide._
Brenda W. Clough
>In article <memo.2003071...@roxanne.morgan.ntlworld.com>,
>Mary Gentle <mary_...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <HI511...@kithrup.com>, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Perhaps it does. Can you give me an example of a story where you
>>>*do* have to describe the characters? Well, let's see, there's
>>>_The Hunchback of Notre Dame,_ and ... uh ....
>>>
>>>
>>Cyrano de Bergerac. :)
>>
>>
>
>Very good. That's two.
>
>And Miles Vorkosigan is probably a third, though you don't really
>need to know any more about his physical description than that
>he's short and fragile. Is he fair or dark? Long or short nose?
>Blue or brown eyes? Do we know? (I dunno.) Do we need to know?
>(No.) Do I care? (No.)
>
Tch! His eyes are gray and his hair is dark.
Brenda W. Clough
I wrote a story in which the character examines his reflection. But he
-had- to do that. Otherwise how would he discover that he's got his
ears and nose back?
Dan Goodman
two people.
"Like all redheads, she's an ugly bitch."
"She looks rather like you, doesn't she?"
"We're genetically identical, and she's two years younger than me. And now
you're going to say I'm not a bitch and I'm not ugly."
"The only thing wrong with the way you look is, you're wearing clothes."
After a few moments of silence, she said "I don't believe you're being
quite professional."
It took me a while to stop laughing.
"You know what it takes to become a licensed detective on Blandish? The
authorities here don't, or they wouldn't have decided my license was valid
here.
"Anyone who finds the licensing office can get a license."
She was silent a bit longer, this time. Then: "You mean anyone can walk in
off the street and become a licensed detective?"
"Not anyone. Most people can't find out where the licensing office is that
day."
David Bilek
>In article <v0lbhvobg1r4edpaa...@4ax.com>,
>David Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>>>
>>>Perhaps it does. Can you give me an example of a story where you
>>>*do* have to describe the characters? Well, let's see, there's
>>>_The Hunchback of Notre Dame,_ and ... uh ....
>>
>>George R.R. Martin's _A Song of Ice and Fire_. Character's appearance
>>is often absolutely crucial.
>
>I think you are the second person who has said that; one more and
>i will have to believe it's true. I am unable to read Martin so
>I'd have to take your word in any case.
>
>Can you sum up in a few words why the character's appearance is
>crucial? Though I can't read Martin I know he's a good enough
>writer that he's not committing the color-code sins so lavishly
>described in the _Tough Guide._
>
Sure... but first, another apology!
It appears that my post is going to come through a LOT of times in
various forms. Please, don't kill me. It was comcast. I swear. It
burped and was sending the message even though it told me the server
was down!
Anyway...
(SPOILERS FOR _ASOIAF_)
Tyrion is a multi-talented dwarf, much like Miles Vorkosigan. So that
one is obvious and needs no comment.
One side of Sandor Clegane's face is horribly scarred and burned.
This is central to his character... it turns out that his brother
Gregor pushed Sandor's face into a pile of hoat coals (or similar) and
held it there until he was dragged off when people responded to
Sandor's agonized screams. The scarring (and its cause) have been
rather central in the formation of Sandor's character.
Jon Snow (named Snow because he is a bastard) has the traditional
looks of the Stark family. It is described in some detail.
However... his supposed father Eddard Stark is the most honorable
character in the novels. It is completely out of character for him to
cheat on his betrothed. How, then, can we explain Jon Snow's
appearance? Close readers will realize that Eddard's dead sister
Lyanna looked much like Eddard. From that and other clues, it's
possible to realize that Jon Snow is not Eddard's son, but rather
Lyanna's. We can also figure out who the father is, but it wouldn't
mean anything to you if you haven't read the books.
Robert Baratheon (the King) has many bastards. All of them share the
king's coloring... skin, hair, etc. All of them. But the
"legitimate" heirs to the throne all have their mother's Lannister
coloring. Blonde, blue eyed, and so forth. Why would every single
one of the King's bastards share his coloring... but not the heirs?
Because, again, they aren't his kids.
And so forth.
-David
Mary K. Kuhner
Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>Perhaps it does. Can you give me an example of a story where you
>*do* have to describe the characters? Well, let's see, there's
>_The Hunchback of Notre Dame,_ and ... uh ....
There's a glorious scene at the end of _The Birthgrave_ where
the POV character finally sees what she actually looks like.
Very powerful.
I can think of a lot of stories where it matters. _Ash_. Many
stories where family resemblance is a plot point; in _A Game of
Thrones_ it matters what the King's bastards look like and what his
trueborn sons look like. Stories where the protagonist is
in a foreign land and his/her appearance causes consternation--I
could never write about my time in Japan without mentioning how
big and gawky I suddenly appeared when I was there. In _A Midsummer
Night's Dream_ it's important that Hermia is short and dark and
Helena is tall and fair--a lot of the humor in their interaction
hinges on this physical contrast. Stories where the POV character
just naturally notices this sort of thing--Sherlock Holmes stories
need accurate descriptions of certain aspects, not hair color and
eye color but the callus on a hand or the cut of someone's hair or
clothing.
And of course, aliens generally need to be described. I had to
establish everything about Analee in description, so that the
reader would model a 40-pound almost-collie rather than a human.
And I describe Harry-Who-Makes almost every time Chernoi sees him,
because he's always bigger than she thinks.
Not all stories need this, but certainly lots do.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
Dorothy J Heydt
Brenda W. Clough <clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>
>>And Miles Vorkosigan is probably a third, though you don't really
>>need to know any more about his physical description than that
>>he's short and fragile. Is he fair or dark? Long or short nose?
>>Blue or brown eyes? Do we know? (I dunno.) Do we need to know?
>>(No.) Do I care? (No.)
>
>
>Tch! His eyes are gray and his hair is dark.
Very good; I revise my statement. Do we know? (Yes.) Do we
need to know? (No.) Do I care? (No.)
Dorothy J. Heydt
Lucinda Welenc
> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <1fy7ad9.7ipbzo16tie2lN%dark...@mindspring.com>,
>> Darkhawk (H. Nicoll) <dark...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <1fy77bg.1hl9ktx13a010vN%dark...@mindspring.com>,
>>>> Darkhawk (H. Nicoll) <dark...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Heh. I have a remarkably difficult time getting descriptions
>>>>> into stories in general.
>>>>
>>>> You don't *need* to describe your characters, you know.
>>>
>>> That depends on the story you're telling, you know.
>>
>
>> Perhaps it does. Can you give me an example of a story where you
>> *do* have to describe the characters? Well, let's see, there's
>> _The Hunchback of Notre Dame,_ and ... uh ....
>
>
> _The Princess Bride_
>
character. If he hates the way he looks because he looks like his
deadbeat Uncle Ned, that tells you something about him. If she's really
self-conscious because she's 6'8" tall -- or 4'8". Or if something
about the reader's looks is important later, it needs to be introduced
soon. In my example of the woman with long braids, it needs to be
brought up early because later in the book she cuts one of them off and
ties it around her dead husband's wrist just before they take him off to
throw him in a mass grave. If it's not clear early on, then the reader
who is visualizing her with short hair is going to stumble and have to
reconfigure her whole mental picture.
If it doesn't matter to the reader, you can safely skip over it.
Dorothy J Heydt
Mary K. Kuhner <mkku...@kingman.gs.washington.edu> wrote:
>There's a glorious scene at the end of _The Birthgrave_ where
>the POV character finally sees what she actually looks like.
>Very powerful.
Why does she not see it before? Disguised? Enchanted? No
mirrors?
I've just thought of another: _The Unlikely Ones._
Chris Johnson
"Nicola Browne" <nicky.m...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> "Jay Swartzfeger" <jswart...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:9cfe678b.03071...@posting.google.com
> > Any thoughts on that article?
> I don't know how you can say whats easy or hard as
> it varies so hugely from person to person. I haven't written a
> first person narrative yet because of the practical difficulties
> of telling a whole story from one perspective. I often begin by
> writing in first person when I'm first coming with an idea and a
> character,but switch within a few paragraphs to tight third
> (which is almost as limiting )usually because
> I'm not quite happy with the voice. I think the voice has to be
> compelling if you're going to spend a whole novel listening to it.
> I can only sustain my own interest in first person for relatively
> short passages and find it easier, as a relative beginner, to have two
> viewpoint characters, but that's probably personal.
I'm prone to do tight-third with bits of omni myself, but I have firm
plans for also doing a novel in first- though it'll be the same world
and the same context as what I'm now writing in tight third.
Here's the trick: if you're a Nero Wolfe fan, Rex Stout is the master
of first person. You don't get a sense of an overbearing personality
bugging you for very specific technical reasons which I'm gonna
shamelessly steal.
Archie Goodwin is the viewpoint- but he's pretty generic. He's smart,
strong, bold, untroubled by psychological issues- you couldn't hang a
story on just him.
Nero Wolfe is what's being looked AT. He's anything but generic. He's
highhanded, arrogant, huge, gratituously eccentric, brilliant- if you
rode in HIS head it'd drive you nuts, but you can hang a story on him.
In first person, the viewpoint is the VIEWPOINT- not necessarily the
protagonist. If the viewpoint character gets too interesting, you can
knock people out of the book.
I'm working on a team that's not at all a straight rip of
Goodwin/Wolfe- but it absolutely is 'straight/wild colorful eccentric'.
The Nero Wolfe books are the best textbook you could have for writing
natural first person. There isn't the slightest hint of 'stunt writing',
they read like butter. Much to be learned :)
Chris Johnson
Chris Johnson
ada...@spamcop.net (Anna Feruglio Dal Dan) wrote:
> What I'd really like is to be able to have two, distinct. People point
> at my stuff in multiple third and tell me sternly that the voices are
> all the same. I cringe in shame, but I just don't know what to do about
> it.
Worry if they're _dull_.
I can think of various writers for which all the voices are all quite
similar, but all totally daft- you begin to accept it as if they were
all writing in rhymed meter, and concern yourself only with whether the
book's fun.
Unless you're looking to go 'tch! tch!' in which case you're losing
touch with what to like- this is similar to how critical reviews of Led
Zeppelin throughout their career tended to be scathingly negative. Some
things are to be enjoyed, not dissected.
Better to have one voice for everybody, that's fun, than many
diligently distinct voices all of which are dead boring :)
Chris Johnson
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)
> In article <1fy7ad9.7ipbzo16tie2lN%dark...@mindspring.com>,
> Darkhawk (H. Nicoll) <dark...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
> >> You don't *need* to describe your characters, you know.
> >
> >That depends on the story you're telling, you know.
>
> Perhaps it does. Can you give me an example of a story where you
> *do* have to describe the characters? Well, let's see, there's
> _The Hunchback of Notre Dame,_ and ... uh ....
In the part of my original post that you snipped, I explicitly said that
I was writing something in which family resemblances are significant.
I am *not* going to attempt to tell this story without making references
to those resemblances, because I am not a flaming idiot.
--
Heather Anne Nicoll - Darkhawk - http://aelfhame.net/~darkhawk/
They are one person, they are two alone
They are three together, they are for each other.
- "Helplessly Hoping", Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young
R. L.
wrote:
/snip/
I agree with you and everyone who's disagreed with the article. :-)
>http://sff.onlinewritingworkshop.com/tips/shapiro.shtml
>
>One of the reasons she suggests avoiding 1st is because of doozies
>like this:
>
>"I looked in the mirror and ran the comb once more through my long,
>curly red hair. My green eyes looked unusually bright."
>
>On one hand, I see her point. It's easy for a total newbie to make
>observations in 1st person that are clunky and infodumpy. However,
>changing those sentences to 3rd person doesn't make it any better --
>it still screams amateur. Whenever I start reading descriptions of
>hair, eyes etc it's usually groan-inducing whether it's 1st or 3rd.
Yes. Sounds like she's contrasting tight first with loose third. I'd
agree with her that tight pv makes for more doozies than loose pv. But
that's true whether it's tight first or tight third.
She sounds like she's never heard of a loose sort of first, as tho she
thought the only way to have a loose pv is in third.
It might be worth generalizing that in third it's easier to get loose in
location, to look *at* the character instead of always *through* his
eyes -- whereas in first it's easier to get loose in time, to give the
narrator a little hindsight. So describing someone's looks might be
easier in third.
But first makes it easier to skip to the events that will ilnterest the
reader, to say things like "I didn't see Susan for the rest of the
winter, and by spring break I'd nearly forgotten about her." In third
you'd have to jump way out of the character to say that. In first it's
no problem: he's telling a story, so he can concentrate on the things
that proved to be important to the story, not on whatever seemed
important to him at the time. (Brain Pickrell and I had some talk about
this a while back.)
In most stories, I'd expect need for telling the protag's appearance
would only come up once*, and might not be very important. Need for
skipping dull events would come up much more often in most stories.
>I guess this article hit a nerve with me because I unsuccessfully
>tried writing in 3rd for years with almost no success. 3rd, in my
>amateur hands, was always stilted, distant and lifeless. It wasn't
>until I switched to 1st person that I started to feel like I was
>making progress.
If people are going to generalize, imo the best POV, style, genre, etc
etc for a novice is the one he *feels like* writing in! Someone said the
first million words are discards anyway, just practice. The faster and
more comfortably those are done, the sooner the practice will be
finished, and by then he will have learned a lot.
Also -- a person doesn't get a *feels right* by accident. It comes from
imitating his own favorites, the stories he's read and understood the
most. So that's likely to be what he can do best, already.
R.L.
* need for telling the protag's appearance would only come up once.
If the appearance kept changing or something, then that would each time
be a plot event so there wouldn't be any problem telling it, I'd think.
If someone's hair color changed every morning, the character could be
forgiven for looking in the mirror every morning to see what it was..
David Friedman
Graydon <o...@uniserve.com> wrote:
> In <1fy78sl.ixris531g8swN%ada...@spamcop.net>,
> Anna Feruglio Dal Dan <ada...@spamcop.net> onsendan:
> > What I'd really like is to be able to have two, distinct. People point
> > at my stuff in multiple third and tell me sternly that the voices are
> > all the same. I cringe in shame, but I just don't know what to do about
> > it.
>
> How do they filter for significance?
>
> Aka, "what's essential?"
>
> A character who is a skilled sword fighter will see hands, balance,
> hilts of weapons, degree of relaxation in faces, height and tension of
> shoulders; a character who is an accountant might notice the buckles on
> their shoes and the presumed degree of social standing to decide whether
> or not to get out of the way.
>
> This extends into what the characters say, too, though how that works
> for me is sufficiently unconscious that I'm not sure how to explain
> _how_ it does that.
Trying to make sense of how I did it in my WIS, it's partly a reflection
of how the character views other people. My protagonist, from a
relatively egalitarian society, talks to everyone more or less on a
level, from a friendly farm boy to the King--the main exceptions being
based on age, and even then he tends not to talk down to younger people
very much. The young King from a somewhat more hierarchical society, in
the early part of the book before my protagonist has taken a hand in his
education, assumes things about status and hierarchy and people obeying
their nominal superiors in his conversation--and when he gives a feast,
the servers at high table are better dressed than the servers for
everyone else. The Emperor--old, tired, intelligent--is from a still
more hierarchical society. He takes his status for granted but makes
efforts to reduce the deference paid to him--because he is absolutely
confident of his position with those around him, and someone prostrating
himself when he ought to be giving a report is a nuisance.
Wildepad
>In <2ombhvgrf0l7thqtn...@4ax.com>,
> Wildepad <capu...@hesenergy.net> onsendan:
>> Using first person as a path to characterization is a classic newbie
>> mistake. The person that wrote that article had to come down hard on
>> using first person in order to reach their audience. They couldn't
>> have said: "don't use first person unless you're good at it" because
>> all newbies think they're good[1].
>
>Oh, mystical twaddle.
:)
>First person, _any kind of through-the-character-filtering_, whether
>first person, tight third person, or the O'Brian float, will allow _a
>certain kind_ of characterization you can't do any other way, because
>it's the minimum remove at which you can show the reader how the
>character thinks.
True, but that has nothing to do with this discussion.
If you had wanted to debate characterization, you should probably have
left that part of the discussion and not the part about why (some)
article writers establish fiats.
>It's possible to teach how to do it well.
No it's not -- never has been -- never will be!
Writing is an art -- art cannot be taught. It can, however, be
learned. The difference is far from subtle.
>> Just like the old saying: "Jerks are like vampires, you hold up a
>> mirror and they don't see anything," you have to make your statements
>> blanket and your rules hard and fast otherwise no one will see
>> themselves as needing your advice or will squirm around creating the
>> most outlandish justifications for their scribblings.
>
>This is a justification for incompetence in teaching, at best.
A single article cannot be called teaching by any stretch of the
imagination.
>The idea that being a 'real writer' is a mystical property conveying
>emotional invincibility and an innate ability to discern appropriate
>technique is outright nonsense.
A real writer keeps writing despite the emotional hurdles -- just ask
anyone who has gotten three rejection slips in one day.
A real writer keeps writing until they find the technique that is best
for them.
Why? Because a real writer writes until they die, because a real
writer can't help but keep writing, because a real writer always wants
to improve their writing.
Any definition of a real writer that does not include these traits is,
at best, pathetic.
LRTTP
Wildepad
Dal Dan) wrote:
>Wildepad <capu...@hesenergy.net> wrote:
>
>> Using first person as a path to characterization is a classic newbie
>> mistake. The person that wrote that article had to come down hard on
>> using first person in order to reach their audience. They couldn't
>> have said: "don't use first person unless you're good at it" because
>> all newbies think they're good[1].
>
>You don't learn by not doing. She might just as well have said "Don't
>write, because it's difficult, and you're likely to do it badly." Of
>course. Newbie will do it badly. The trick is improving. And you improve
>by doing. Some won't, but some will.
But you don't improve by just making the same mistakes over and over
again.
There's nothing wrong in having someone try different techniques, even
ones that they are uncomfortable with. If it doesn't work for them,
nothing is really lost and they have probably gained some insights
into structure/viewpoint/characterization that they would never have
been exposed to if they just kept plugging away at it with their
original ineptitude.
My point, however, was that in such articles the author can't give the
newbie any wiggle-room or there'll be no impetus to experimentation.
Neil Barnes
news:Xns93BAD563C43...@209.98.13.60:
> "You know what it takes to become a licensed detective on
> Blandish? The authorities here don't, or they wouldn't have
> decided my license was valid here.
>
> "Anyone who finds the licensing office can get a license."
>
> She was silent a bit longer, this time. Then: "You mean
> anyone can walk in off the street and become a licensed
> detective?"
>
> "Not anyone. Most people can't find out where the licensing
> office is that day."
>
Just follow the trail of orchids?
Come to think of it, Earl Stanley Gardner IIRC always described
his characters in lavish detail.
Neil
--
note - the email address in this message is valid but the
signal to noise ratio approaches -40dB. A more useful address
is a similar account at ntlworld-fullstop-com.
Mary K. Kuhner
Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>George R.R. Martin's _A Song of Ice and Fire_. Character's appearance
>>is often absolutely crucial.
>Can you sum up in a few words why the character's appearance is
>crucial? Though I can't read Martin I know he's a good enough
>writer that he's not committing the color-code sins so lavishly
>described in the _Tough Guide._
It is in very large part a story about Family, and the resemblance
between parents and children (or its lack) has both thematic and
plot significance. In particular, it's significant that the
King's bastards are dark-haired shaggy folk like the King, but
the King's lawful offspring are all fair-haired and dapper, like
someone else.... The bastards' lives are endangered by someone's
perception of this fact.
It also matters that one of the characters is a twisted dwarf from
a family of big, powerful warriors. It's a crucial character
detail; it informs almost every scene he's in.
In Tey's _The Daughter of Time_ there's a description of Richard
III as a child, with his family: he's dark-haired among all the
fair ones, and looks like a stranger. It's a nice character bit.
The fair-haired contingent gets to be increasingly sinister as
the novel goes on. _Ice and Fire_ does much the same with the fair-
haired Lannisters.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
Mary K. Kuhner
>Mary K. Kuhner <mkku...@kingman.gs.washington.edu> wrote:
>>There's a glorious scene at the end of _The Birthgrave_ where
>>the POV character finally sees what she actually looks like.
>>Very powerful.
>Why does she not see it before? Disguised? Enchanted? No
>mirrors?
I can't really answer this without a whole-book spoiler, except to
say that she has tried hard not to find out, because she thinks
she knows the answer already and wants to avoid the pain of
confirmation. She is a pretty screwed-up person. She doesn't
find out her name until that point either.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
Mary K. Kuhner
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan <ada...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>What I'd really like is to be able to have two, distinct. People point
>at my stuff in multiple third and tell me sternly that the voices are
>all the same. I cringe in shame, but I just don't know what to do about
>it.
Two things that have sometimes helped me:
1) Writing bits of first-person narration from the problem character's
POV. This is not for publication and in fact should be a little
self-indulgent and talky for best effect. You can also have the
character write a letter home, or tell someone a long story.
2) Having conversations as that character. This is easier in a roleplaying
context, of course. But there may be ways to finagle it otherwise,
especially if your story is modern or post-modern. You could impersonate
the character in some simple everyday transaction, like going to the
store.
I was surprised to find out that when Chernoi walks through a crowded
mall, she expects everyone to get out of her way. I was even more surprised
to note that people respond to this and *do* get out of the way.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
Dorothy J Heydt
Graydon <o...@uniserve.com> wrote:
>
>First person, _any kind of through-the-character-filtering_, whether
>first person, tight third person, or the O'Brian float, will allow _a
[*]
Brian M. Scott
<capu...@hesenergy.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 20:20:47 -0400, Graydon <o...@uniserve.com> wrote:
[...]
>>It's possible to teach how to do it well.
>No it's not -- never has been -- never will be!
>Writing is an art -- art cannot be taught. It can, however, be
>learned. The difference is far from subtle.
It can, unless you mean something like 'taught so that every
serious student learns it', in which case damn' near nothing can
be taught; the fact that some teachers are more successful than
others is prima facie evidence for this. The transaction
involves two parties, both of whose contributions influence the
outcome. There are ways for a teacher to improve the chances
that his students learn what he's teaching; there are also ways
for students to improve the chances of learning what's being
taught.
Brian
Brian M. Scott
<capu...@hesenergy.net> wrote:
[...]
>My point, however, was that in such articles the author can't give the
>newbie any wiggle-room or there'll be no impetus to experimentation.
But the point makes no sense, unless you think that almost all
beginners are idiots. I'd expect such categorical statements to
be counterproductive, if anything: it's so obvious that they are
at best greatly exaggerated and at worst flat-out wrong that a
beginner may be encouraged to ignore genuinely useful advice (if
any) from the same source.
Brian
azqaz
But, ...
didn't this have some bearing in the first short stories? His
physical features had a real bearing in the way he was treated in the
first several stories, before the prequels. The fact that he was
different in a way that made people treat him as a mutant, even though
it was stressed several, no, many, times that he wasn't, made his
description important. Also his resemblance, or lack there of, to his
father and grandfather was pivital to some of the early stories.
Bryan
David Bilek
>In article <1fy7ad9.7ipbzo16tie2lN%dark...@mindspring.com>,
>Darkhawk (H. Nicoll) <dark...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>> >stories in general.
>>>
>>
>>That depends on the story you're telling, you know.
>
>Perhaps it does. Can you give me an example of a story where you
>*do* have to describe the characters? Well, let's see, there's
>_The Hunchback of Notre Dame,_ and ... uh ....
>
George R.R. Martin's _A Song of Ice and Fire_. Character appearance
is often absolutely crucial.
-David
David Bilek
David Bilek
GJP [aka MamaG]
news:b789d603.03071...@posting.google.com:
Apples and oranges. His disfigurement (mostly his height,
IIRC) is important. So it gets described. His eye color, hair
color and texture, skin tone, etc. aren't important to the
plot, so they aren't infodumped in the first scene.
Description should be appropriate to the story being told. The
existence of some stories in which physical appearance plays
an important role doesn't change the fact that in far more
stories it is the _least_ important character attribute. And
even where physical appearance matters, there is a question of
focus. Which features matter? All of them, or just a few?
--
GJP
Mary Gentle
(Graydon) wrote:
> In <memo.2003071...@roxanne.morgan.ntlworld.com>, Mary Gentle
> <mary_...@cix.co.uk> onsendan:
> > In article <3f15cff2$0$83052$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk>,
> > pe...@knutsen.dk (Peter Knutsen) wrote:
> > [...]
> >> In the later case, you could, in theory, postpone describing the
> >> character until you reach the story where the physical trait becomes
> >> relevant, but I'm concerned that by that point, the reader has
> >> already formed a mental picture of the character, so if the character
> >> is suddenly described in some way that disagrees with the reader's
> >> mental picture, there's trouble.
> >
> > It occurs to me that this happens -- it happens with me, when I'm
> > reading -- but I don't know how it happens. If there's no overt
> > description, and not much covert, either, how is it one gets these
> > ideas?
>
> There are large parts of our brains devoted to processing appearance;
> it'd be surprising if -- in a successful book -- there isn't something
> like the engagement of a social situation and those parts of one's head
> more or less making stuff up out of a need to have something to do.
It's the how and the what of that making-up that was interesting me. I
suppose one could draw it from personal experience, or reading other
books, and doubtless that happens -- I also think there must be subtle
clues that don't superficially seem to have anything to do with the
character's appearance, and that the author won't have put that, but that
nonetheless we're processing.
>
> > I'm not just thinking of purely individual reactions drawn from one's
> > own experience, along the lines of "every man called Sam is blond", or
> > "Veronicas are bitchy", or whatever. But the way in which you can be
> > /convinced/ of a character's 'wrong' appearance, and even when the
> > author finally comes clean on p.203, the reader doesn't believe it.
> > It's very odd.
>
> Rather like the number of people convinced Ivan Vorpatril is blond?
That's another version of it, yes, but that can happen in situations when
the author does description way before p.203, and you read it, and _still_
the character stays different in your head.
>
> My take on it is that once any kind of social interaction between the
> reader and the characters is taking place -- and 'I care what happens to
> these people' counts -- the reader will create an image of that person
> sufficient for social purposes. Which will vary by reader, quite a bit,
> of course, but that's what produces the convinced descriptions.
'Visual' readers would create this image-appearance more than other types
of reader, I suppose. And for others, the 'image' would be a conviction
about how their voice sounds, or how they take up their personal space.
Mary
Mary Gentle
wrote:
> I wrote a story in which the character examines his reflection. But he
> -had- to do that. Otherwise how would he discover that he's got his
> ears and nose back?
...to front?
Sorry. Creative dyslexia again. :)
Mary
Mary Gentle
jinx...@sover.net (Chris Johnson) wrote:
[...]
> Nero Wolfe is what's being looked AT. He's anything but generic.
> He's highhanded, arrogant, huge, gratituously eccentric, brilliant- if
> you rode in HIS head it'd drive you nuts,
Why?
Mary
Mary Gentle
wrote:
> In article <memo.2003071...@roxanne.morgan.ntlworld.com>,
> Mary Gentle <mary_...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>There have been a number of popular series in which the author uses
> first >>person in every book. If you look closely at these, often the
> narrative >>voice is interchangeable from one book to another; [...]
> >>What these authors have done is to hit upon a voice that readers
> resonate >>to. Their fans like that voice so much, along with the
> books' plots, that >>they don't mind that all the protagonists are
> essentially the same >>person. Finding a voice like that is nearly
> impossible to do by design. >
> >I'm moved to wonder (assuming it's true) how she thinks the person
> 'hit >on' the resonating voice, if it wasn't by design. Does she think
> the >Tooth Fairy came along and left it under the pillow?
>
> Maybe. Or other versions of saying "it just came naturally."
> God, He knows that I never worked at having a voice of any kind,
> and yet one or two people have told me I've got one.
I think there's a difference between the writer's voice and the voice of
the first/third person protagonist.
Mary
Mary Gentle
ada...@spamcop.net (Anna Feruglio Dal Dan) wrote:
> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <memo.2003071...@roxanne.morgan.ntlworld.com>,
> > Mary Gentle <mary_...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > >>There have been a number of popular series in which the author uses
> > first
> > >>person in every book. If you look closely at these, often the
> > narrative
> > >>voice is interchangeable from one book to another; [...]
> > >>What these authors have done is to hit upon a voice that readers
> > resonate
> > >>to. Their fans like that voice so much, along with the books'
> > plots, that
> > >>they don't mind that all the protagonists are essentially the same
> > >>person. Finding a voice like that is nearly impossible to do by
> > design.
> > >
> > >I'm moved to wonder (assuming it's true) how she thinks the person
> > 'hit
> > >on' the resonating voice, if it wasn't by design. Does she think the
> > >Tooth Fairy came along and left it under the pillow?
> >
> > Maybe. Or other versions of saying "it just came naturally."
> > God, He knows that I never worked at having a voice of any kind,
> > and yet one or two people have told me I've got one.
>
> What I'd really like is to be able to have two, distinct. People point
> at my stuff in multiple third and tell me sternly that the voices are
> all the same. I cringe in shame, but I just don't know what to do about
> it.
Listen differently?
I dunno: if you wanted to try a writing exercise, pick two distinct third
person voices out of novels by other authors, and write something using
them. (Austen and Pratchett, maybe? :) It seems to me that if you're
copying, you can concentrate on hearing the difference as you're doing it,
rather than having to worry about creating the voices from whole cloth.
And then one hopes you could carry that over to your own stuff.
Try reading your story aloud, and see how you differentiate the
different thirds with your speaking voice, and what there is of that
that's _not_ in the text?
I tend to start off thinking of 'voice' literally in terms of sound,
rhythm, pacing, emphasis. If I can get it, then it's a matter of
reproducing the effect in words on paper. (And simultaneously looking at
how voice and character interlock.)
That, for me, is where the effort comes in, and why her saying 'hit on'
and 'you can't do it by design' grate on me so much. It's partly true,
but the ways in which it's _not_ true are things I find really
significant. For me, trying to 'get' a voice is trying to yoke a
conscious and an unconscious process together. And that's way more
complicated than she seems to think.
Mary
Manny Olds
>>> Perhaps it does. Can you give me an example of a story where you
>>> *do* have to describe the characters? Well, let's see, there's
>>> _The Hunchback of Notre Dame,_ and ... uh ....
>>
>>_The Princess Bride_
> I have read that, but long ago, and needles under my nails
> wouldn't make me read it again. Can you sum up in a few words
> character description is crucial there?
It is (partly) about conventions and stereotypes of a genre, so it has to
follow the conventions of character appearance far enough to mess with
them. Conventional fairy-tale romances tell us how beautiful the princess
is and how ugly the giant is (etc.)--so doing that is crucial to _TPB_.
Also, when Spoiler is disguised and is not recognized (even though of
course he should have been--more genre play).
--
Manny Olds (old...@pobox.com) of Riverdale Park, Maryland, USA
"Because, after all, I am noisy, mildly obscene, semi-fabulous and utterly
convinced that everything is about me, after all. And in reality, that is
all that matters, besides a good haircut." -- LAW (Leight Witchel)
James Wallis
<djh...@kithrup.com> writes
>
>Perhaps it does. Can you give me an example of a story where you
>*do* have to describe the characters? Well, let's see, there's
>_The Hunchback of Notre Dame,_ and ... uh ....
Richard III
--
James Wallis
Chris Johnson
> Mary
Incessant grammar correction of your every little thought :)
Chris "TRUST me" Johnson
Mary Gentle
ja...@erstwhile.demon.co.uk (James Wallis) wrote:
Rapunzel.
Mary
Mary Gentle
jinx...@sover.net (Chris Johnson) wrote:
> In article <memo.2003071...@roxanne.morgan.ntlworld.com>,
> mary_...@cix.co.uk (Mary Gentle) wrote:
> > In article <jinx6568-9DA53B...@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com>,
> > jinx...@sover.net (Chris Johnson) wrote:
>
> > > Nero Wolfe is what's being looked AT. He's anything but generic.
> > > He's highhanded, arrogant, huge, gratituously eccentric, brilliant-
> > > if you rode in HIS head it'd drive you nuts,
> >
> > Why?
>
> > Mary
>
> Incessant grammar correction of your every little thought :)
Heh... and this is different from daily life how?
> Chris "TRUST me" Johnson
I think there are other heads that would drive me nuttier, to be honest.
But that's just because the sidekick-narrator doesn't particularly appeal
to me, whether it's _Gatsby_ or Sherlock Holmes or whatever -- I'll put up
with it to read the story, but I don't /require/ bland.
Just personal taste...
Mary
Stuart Houghton
news:memo.2003071...@roxanne.morgan.ntlworld.com:
_The Crying Game_ :-)
--
Stuart Houghton
Dorothy J Heydt
azqaz <az...@eudoramail.com> wrote:
>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in message news:<HI5D4...@kithrup.com>...
>> >>And Miles Vorkosigan is probably a third, though you don't really
>> >>need to know any more about his physical description than that
>> >>he's short and fragile. ....
>> Very good; I revise my statement. Do we know? (Yes.) Do we
>> need to know? (No.) Do I care? (No.)
>
>But, ...
>
>didn't this have some bearing in the first short stories? His
>physical features had a real bearing in the way he was treated in the
>first several stories, before the prequels.
I've left chunks of both my posts in so you can see my point. It
is relevant that he is short and fragile. It isn't relevant that
his eyes are ... grey, I think Brenda said.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
Dorothy J Heydt
Manny Olds <old...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>Also, when Spoiler is disguised and is not recognized (even though of
>course he should have been--more genre play).
Who was it who said, "Opera is a form of drama in which the
heroine can spend the night with the hero and not recognize him
the next day because he has changed his cloak"?
Dorothy J Heydt
No. In the first place, Richard wasn't hunchbacked. He had a
withered arm. In the second place, the flaws attributed to
Richard in the mythos (based on the party line of the Tudors who
had overthrown him, particularly Shakespeare's play which was
written in the reign of a Tudor) are flaws of character, not
physical envelope.
Dorothy J Heydt
Graydon <o...@uniserve.com> wrote:
>In <HI5nr...@kithrup.com>,
> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> onsendan:
>> In article <slrnbhbqu...@ID-49476.user.dfn.cis.de>,
>> Graydon <o...@uniserve.com> wrote:
>>>First person, _any kind of through-the-character-filtering_, whether
>>>first person, tight third person, or the O'Brian float, will allow _a
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> [*]
>
>different character's heads as the needs of the story require, very
>smoothly so that you hardly notice it's doing it.
Oh. OK. That must be very difficult to do well.
Dorothy J Heydt
Graydon <o...@uniserve.com> wrote:
>
>I try to put all of that in, but there are times it's just impossible --
>I can't tell the reader that character so-and-so sings just like Lisa
>Gerrard, even if that's what I'm hearing in my head.
OTOH if someone like me asks "Who is Lisa Gerrard, I never heard
of her, what does she sound like?" maybe you're on your way to a
description.
Dorothy J Heydt
(a) Because he's highhanded, arrogant, eccentric, and seriously
conceited.
(b) because he is brilliant, and it is difficult (cue discussions
of Stapledon here) to describe the workings of a mind much
smarter than your own.
(c) And (not from a drive-you-nuts standpoint but merely a
story-writing standpoint) a lot of plot tension in the Wolfe
stories is achieved by Wolfe not telling Archie, the viewpoint
character, everything he knows. Wolfe excuses this by telling
Archie he is too honest, that if he knew whatever-spoiler-it-is
it would show on his face. Archie says Wolfe just likes to stage
big revelation scenes and surprise everybody in the room. He may
have something here, because on occasion Wolfe has entrusted Archie
with a task involving keeping a secret, and Archie carries it out
faithfully and doesn't even tell the reader till it's time.
Mary Gentle
stu_ajh-utter...@hotmail.com (Stuart Houghton) wrote:
Oh dear me, yes. <g>
Long John Silver?
Mary
Mary Gentle
wrote:
> In article <n3ZkkPHSuoF$Ew...@erstwhile.demon.co.uk>,
> James Wallis <ja...@erstwhile.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >In message <HI511...@kithrup.com>, Dorothy J Heydt
> ><djh...@kithrup.com> writes
> >>
> >>Perhaps it does. Can you give me an example of a story where you
> >>*do* have to describe the characters? Well, let's see, there's
> >>_The Hunchback of Notre Dame,_ and ... uh ....
> >
> >Richard III
>
> No. In the first place, Richard wasn't hunchbacked. He had a
> withered arm. In the second place, the flaws attributed to
> Richard in the mythos (based on the party line of the Tudors who
> had overthrown him, particularly Shakespeare's play which was
> written in the reign of a Tudor) are flaws of character, not
> physical envelope.
But if you're referring to the play, and I assume we are because
you were talking about stories, it doesn't matter what Richard was
historically.
In the play, Richard himself says that his villainy is down to the way he
looks - sent into this breathing world scarce half made up. And, as the
Tudors tended to view it, flaws of character _are_ flaws of physical
envelope. (Or possibly vice versa.) It matters that he's a bunchbacked
toad, or bottled spider: other people respond to him along the lines that
as he's made, so will he be.
That attitude's still around, to some degree. If you were writing about
a character in a wheelchair, now, you might not have the people around
them making 'aroint thee!' signs -- but you may well have them not talking
or making eye-contact with the person in the chair, and only speaking to
the able bodied person with them. In which case, you need to describe the
physicality of the character.
Personally, I don't think a culture invents proverbs like "don't judge a
book by it's cover" unless people are busy doing just that.
How tall you are, how short you are, whether people buy into the
stereotypes about your hair colour, whether your eyes are too close
together... it all gets a reaction from the characters around your protag.
Not all those reactions are essential to the story, but the ones that are,
are.
I think what the original article /wanted/ to complain about was identikit
characterisation, and the fetishisation of physical characteristics that
EFP, in particular, is liable to fall prey to.
Mary
Stuart Houghton
> In article <slrnbhd80...@ID-49476.user.dfn.cis.de>,
> Graydon <o...@uniserve.com> wrote:
>>
>>I try to put all of that in, but there are times it's just impossible --
>>I can't tell the reader that character so-and-so sings just like Lisa
>>Gerrard, even if that's what I'm hearing in my head.
>
> OTOH if someone like me asks "Who is Lisa Gerrard, I never heard
> of her, what does she sound like?" maybe you're on your way to a
> description.
>
If you have seen _Gladiator_, Lisa Gerrard provided several tracks for the
score. Her music often involves haunting choral vocals and is usually
described as 'ethereal' by lazy music hacks.
Beautiful stuff and I think that even you might like her, Dorothy[1] - she
is about as far from conventional pop/rock as you can get.
[1] based on several previous postings you have made.
--
Stuart Houghton
Stuart Houghton
>> >
>>
>> _The Crying Game_ :-)
>
> Oh dear me, yes. <g>
>
> Long John Silver?
>
Yup - although I can't remember how much we know about his looks other than
the bits that are missing.
Harry Potter's appearance is important - both his scar and (in OoTP) the
fact that he resembles his father are plot points.
Moby Dick? It is important that we know the title character is an albino
with a bit of a weight problem.
--
Stuart Houghton
Brian D. Fernald
mkku...@kingman.gs.washington.edu said...
> In article <HI511...@kithrup.com>,
> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>
> >Perhaps it does. Can you give me an example of a story where you
> >*do* have to describe the characters? Well, let's see, there's
> >_The Hunchback of Notre Dame,_ and ... uh ....
>
> the POV character finally sees what she actually looks like.
> Very powerful.
>
> I can think of a lot of stories where it matters. _Ash_. Many
> stories where family resemblance is a plot point; in _A Game of
> Thrones_ it matters what the King's bastards look like and what his
> trueborn sons look like. Stories where the protagonist is
> in a foreign land and his/her appearance causes consternation--I
> could never write about my time in Japan without mentioning how
> big and gawky I suddenly appeared when I was there. In _A Midsummer
> Night's Dream_ it's important that Hermia is short and dark and
> Helena is tall and fair--a lot of the humor in their interaction
> hinges on this physical contrast. Stories where the POV character
> just naturally notices this sort of thing--Sherlock Holmes stories
> need accurate descriptions of certain aspects, not hair color and
> eye color but the callus on a hand or the cut of someone's hair or
> clothing.
Also, Robin Hobb's farseer, where several characters undergoe extremely
tramatic events that are reflected in their appearance. If they had
not been described otherwise, what impact can there wasted appearence
have on the reader?
In the same series, the main character's resemblance to his father is
extremely important to the logical structure of the plot. It applies
even to the clothes that he is given to wear, so that people's opinion
of him will not get too high and cause problems. Yet, the physical
similiarity between the father and the son, does cause the character
problems throughout the story. This plot cannot be done effectively
without the physical descriptions, because without them the rational
structure doesn't exist.
The choice of whether to use physical descriptions or not is ultimately
up to the individual writer, but not including physical description can
limit the kind of story that you can tell.
--
BDF.
FSOBN.
"Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus"
Brian D. Fernald
pe...@knutsen.dk said...
>
> Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> > You don't *need* to describe your characters, you know. Many
>
> Sometimes a description gives the reader important information about a
> character, information, which helps to make later events more
> plausible. It is even possible that a description in one story serves
> to support deeds or events in a *later* story.
Take Dickens, whose memorable characters are described in terms of
phrenology to such a degree that you could teach phrenology from
Dickens' stories.
Uriah Heep is a memorable character, would it be as memorable without
the physical description?
Brian D. Fernald
dtb...@comcast.net said...
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> >In article <v0lbhvobg1r4edpaa...@4ax.com>,
> >David Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Perhaps it does. Can you give me an example of a story where you
> >>>*do* have to describe the characters? Well, let's see, there's
> >>>_The Hunchback of Notre Dame,_ and ... uh ....
> >>
> >>is often absolutely crucial.
> >
> >I think you are the second person who has said that; one more and
> >i will have to believe it's true. I am unable to read Martin so
> >I'd have to take your word in any case.
> >
> >Can you sum up in a few words why the character's appearance is
> >crucial? Though I can't read Martin I know he's a good enough
> >writer that he's not committing the color-code sins so lavishly
> >described in the _Tough Guide._
> >
>
> Sure... but first, another apology!
>
> It appears that my post is going to come through a LOT of times in
> various forms. Please, don't kill me. It was comcast. I swear. It
> burped and was sending the message even though it told me the server
> was down!
>
> Anyway...
>
> (SPOILERS FOR _ASOIAF_)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Tyrion is a multi-talented dwarf, much like Miles Vorkosigan. So that
> one is obvious and needs no comment.
>
> One side of Sandor Clegane's face is horribly scarred and burned.
> This is central to his character... it turns out that his brother
> Gregor pushed Sandor's face into a pile of hoat coals (or similar) and
> held it there until he was dragged off when people responded to
> Sandor's agonized screams. The scarring (and its cause) have been
> rather central in the formation of Sandor's character.
>
> Jon Snow (named Snow because he is a bastard) has the traditional
> looks of the Stark family. It is described in some detail.
> However... his supposed father Eddard Stark is the most honorable
> character in the novels. It is completely out of character for him to
> cheat on his betrothed. How, then, can we explain Jon Snow's
> appearance? Close readers will realize that Eddard's dead sister
> Lyanna looked much like Eddard. From that and other clues, it's
> possible to realize that Jon Snow is not Eddard's son, but rather
> Lyanna's. We can also figure out who the father is, but it wouldn't
> mean anything to you if you haven't read the books.
>
> Robert Baratheon (the King) has many bastards. All of them share the
> king's coloring... skin, hair, etc. All of them. But the
> "legitimate" heirs to the throne all have their mother's Lannister
> coloring. Blonde, blue eyed, and so forth. Why would every single
> one of the King's bastards share his coloring... but not the heirs?
> Because, again, they aren't his kids.
>
Another specific example, the traditional royal family of the land, who
were overthrown by Robert Baratheon, have a distinct appearance. So,
that you might not know anything about a character, but you would know
that they are a member of that family, just based on their appearance.
As the examples show, we have three families will distinctive
appearances, and all three families and there appearances have some
importance in the overall plot.
Brian D. Fernald
> In article <1fy7ad9.7ipbzo16tie2lN%dark...@mindspring.com>,
> Darkhawk (H. Nicoll) <dark...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> Darkhawk (H. Nicoll) <dark...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >Heh. I have a remarkably difficult time getting descriptions into
> >> >stories in general.
> >>
> >
>
> *do* have to describe the characters? Well, let's see, there's
> _The Hunchback of Notre Dame,_ and ... uh ....
>
Any story where the appearance of a characters matters to the plot, or
to the other characters in the story.
Robin Hobb's Liveship Traders have characters that transform (or
deform) based on their closeness to dragons.
Martin is already mentioned.
One of Jordan's protagonists is described in several sections as having
a distinctive appearance, that is highly dependent on the other
characters experiences, which points to the circumstances of his birth.
Edding's Garion has a distinctive scar on his hand, a visible evidence
for his lineage.
Justin Bacon
>He did an interesting experiment on the subject once. He'd just
>turned in the MS. of a novel, and several of the house editors,
>all female, got onto his case about never describing characters.
>He said simply, "What does {name of female character} look like?"
>Each editor described herself.
Which has some interesting connotations when considering in conjunction with
Scott McCloud's theory (in UNDERSTANDING COMICS) that the reason our culture is
fascinated by the iconic/cartoonish style of art is because we can so easily
read ourselves onto the characters.
IOW, the lack of specificity allows the reader to identify themselves with the
main character. As a technique this probably works very well for any form of
escapist entertainment.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
>In <HI511...@kithrup.com>,
> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> onsendan:
>> In article <1fy7ad9.7ipbzo16tie2lN%dark...@mindspring.com>,
>> Darkhawk (H. Nicoll) <dark...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>>> You don't *need* to describe your characters, you know.
>>>
>>>That depends on the story you're telling, you know.
>>
>> Perhaps it does. Can you give me an example of a story where you
>> *do* have to describe the characters? Well, let's see, there's
>> _The Hunchback of Notre Dame,_ and ... uh ....
>
>a face like a lizard."
>
>:A Deepness in the Sky:
>
>Anything with aliens, really.
I don't think that's true, either. Iain Banks' Culture novels are entirely
populated by aliens, but the only time you get a description of them is when
its important to the context of the story. Thus, you get descriptions of the
Azad (mandated by their racism) and the Affront (because it helps to explain
the environmental conditions they have to live under; and <SPOILER>) -- but
almost never any detailed description of the humanoid species.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
David Friedman
> How tall you are, how short you are, whether people buy into the
> stereotypes about your hair colour, whether your eyes are too close
> together... it all gets a reaction from the characters around your protag.
> Not all those reactions are essential to the story, but the ones that are,
> are.
For one example... . My father is intellectually aggressive,
intelligent, a very good debater, and for most of his career
successfully supported what was very much a minority position in his
field. He is also 5' 3.5" tall. I think one of the reasons very few of
the people he successfully debated disliked him is that short people
don't feel as threatening as tall people--there's a tendency not to take
them as seriously in those terms.
Of course, your experience may differ.
At the other extreme, I was once on a TV show with Jesse Jackson and a
man who had written a book critical of King. Jackson is quite tall, the
author was short, and Jackson was clearly using his height to
psychologically intimidate the author--looming over him.
Wildepad
wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 23:52:33 -0500, Wildepad
><capu...@hesenergy.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 20:20:47 -0400, Graydon <o...@uniserve.com> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>>It's possible to teach how to do it well.
>
>>No it's not -- never has been -- never will be!
>
>>Writing is an art -- art cannot be taught. It can, however, be
>>learned. The difference is far from subtle.
>
>It can, unless you mean something like 'taught so that every
>serious student learns it', in which case damn' near nothing can
>be taught;
To some extent, that is true -- it would be deviously difficult to
teach biochemistry to a chimp, no matter how curious it might be.
The effect is more pronounced in the arts rather than the sciences,
however. I suspect that this is true because so much of the sciences
can be reduced to simple steps under controlled conditions (for
example, even the most complex chemical reactions can be broken down
to which element is reacting with which other element(s) and to what
degree at each stage).
The arts, OTOH, deal with an entire body of work in one shot, which
requires more than just rules and calculations.
>the fact that some teachers are more successful than
>others is prima facie evidence for this.
The best teachers, though, are ones which can motivate a student to
learn.
>The transaction
>involves two parties, both of whose contributions influence the
>outcome. There are ways for a teacher to improve the chances
>that his students learn what he's teaching; there are also ways
>for students to improve the chances of learning what's being
>taught.
Right. However no teacher, no matter how good, can make a
disinterested pupil learn, but an eager pupil can learn from any
halfway comptent teacher.
David Friedman
djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
I suspect also
(b') Because one way of creating the illusion that you are describing
someone much smarter than you are is by not building an entire,
consistent character but only showing fragments of what, if the reader
could see the rest, would be an inconsistent character.
David Friedman
> 'Visual' readers would create this image-appearance more than other types
> of reader, I suppose. And for others, the 'image' would be a conviction
> about how their voice sounds, or how they take up their personal space.
Speaking as a non-visual reader and writer, I have only the vaguest
impression of the physical appearance of most of my characters and most
of the characters in the books I read. I've just finished _Cosmonaut
Keep-, and there is only one character of whom I have any significant
physical picture in my mind, although I think there are were several
others that the author provided some physical description of.
Justin Bacon
>It occurs to me that this happens -- it happens with me, when I'm reading
>-- but I don't know how it happens. If there's no overt description, and
>not much covert, either, how is it one gets these ideas?
Personally, when I read a story I see the events played out across my
imagination. If the author gives me descriptions, I'll plug them in. If the
author doesn't, my mind will create its own cast of characters.
>But the way in which you can be
>/convinced/ of a character's 'wrong' appearance, and even when the author
>finally comes clean on p.203, the reader doesn't believe it.
I don't think the reader thinks the author got it wrong. But the author has
created a friction between the character the reader imagined and the character
which the reader must now imagine if they're going to follow the author's
narrative. Now the reader has to fight to re-create their mental image of a
character, which can detract from the book.
I had a similar experience when I got to the end of LOTR and finally saw
Tolkien's pronunciation guide. Eventually I managed to incorporate the correct
pronunciation of Tolkien's names, but it took awhile -- and it did detract from
my re-reading of LOTR for awhile until I got the new mental pattern
established.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
>Especially when the description is what I call the Snow White
>syndrome - fair skin is 'snow white', dark hair is 'jet
>black' or 'ebony', red hair is 'flaming', blue eyes are 'icy',
>green eyes are 'jade', etc., ad nauseum.
Frankly, I always find those types of descriptions hilarious because my
subconscious always wants to take them literally.
(The sorceress' flaming red hair whipped wildly in the wind as lightning
crashed down around the blackened tower.
"Uhh... Excuse me, miss. Why is your hair on fire?")
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Dorothy J Heydt
Justin Bacon <tria...@aol.com> wrote:
>Mary Gentle wrote:
>>It occurs to me that this happens -- it happens with me, when I'm reading
>>-- but I don't know how it happens. If there's no overt description, and
>>not much covert, either, how is it one gets these ideas?
>
>Personally, when I read a story I see the events played out across my
>imagination. If the author gives me descriptions, I'll plug them in. If the
>author doesn't, my mind will create its own cast of characters.
>
>>But the way in which you can be
>>/convinced/ of a character's 'wrong' appearance, and even when the author
>>finally comes clean on p.203, the reader doesn't believe it.
>
>I don't think the reader thinks the author got it wrong. But the author has
>created a friction between the character the reader imagined and the character
>which the reader must now imagine if they're going to follow the author's
>narrative. Now the reader has to fight to re-create their mental image of a
>character, which can detract from the book.
So the moral is, either describe your characters up front, or
don't describe them at all.
That's easier in third person, the looser the better, you can
give a few words of description when the character first appears
and let the reader fill in the rest.
Tight-third is almost as difficult as first for that purpose. I
have a fragment (i.e., a chapter one with a few elements dangling
after it like the tendrils of a wraith) whose protagonist/viewpoint
character I presumably should describe just a little, but she's
not introspective and has never seen a mirror in her life. I'm
reduced to mentioning that she's about twelve, has been starving
in the streets ever since she can remember, and when she brings
an orphaned kitten to someone for help, the other person says
"You poor little thing," and she thinks she means the kitten.
Past that I can't go.
Dorothy J Heydt
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.com> wrote:
>
>For one example... . My father is intellectually aggressive,
>intelligent, a very good debater, and for most of his career
>successfully supported what was very much a minority position in his
>field. He is also 5' 3.5" tall. I think one of the reasons very few of
>the people he successfully debated disliked him is that short people
>don't feel as threatening as tall people--there's a tendency not to take
>them as seriously in those terms.
>
>Of course, your experience may differ.
There's a stereotype that short people (men, anyway) feel they have
to make up for their lack of inches with extra aggressiveness.
This does not always happen of course. But it happens often
enough to have engendered the stereotype--described as "bantam
rooster" or "short guy problem".
Hence the popular assumption that Napoleon was short (e.g.
particularly, the way he's portrayed in _Time Bandits_), but he
was about 5'11". He just displayed the behavior we associate
with short people. Possibly because he came from Corsica, which
was a French possession and whose inhabitants were French
citizens, but with Italian ethnicity and the stigma of being "not
really French"?
Brian Pickrell
> >>
> >> You don't *need* to describe your characters, you know.
> >
> >That depends on the story you're telling, you know.
>
> Perhaps it does. Can you give me an example of a story where you
> *do* have to describe the characters? Well, let's see, there's
> _The Hunchback of Notre Dame,_ and ... uh ....
"Have to" as in a descriptive detail whose specifics are a key plot
point? Or, as in a general description of which the details aren't
important (the hero is big and strong)?
How about stories where you "have to" describe the characters for
reasons other than letting the reader know what they look like?
How about a story where the description establishes the voice or tone
of the story? In _American Psycho_ (which I haven't read), the nutty
narrator compulsively lists all sorts of details about people's
clothes and appearance.
How about detective stories where lots of irrelevant description is
necessary to mask the one detail that's a clue?
Brian Pickrell
> this following piece of advice from an editor on why rookies should
> avoid 1st person:
>
> http://sff.onlinewritingworkshop.com/tips/shapiro.shtml
[...]
> I guess this article hit a nerve with me because I unsuccessfully
> tried writing in 3rd for years with almost no success. 3rd, in my
> amateur hands, was always stilted, distant and lifeless. It wasn't
> until I switched to 1st person that I started to feel like I was
> making progress.
I'm the same way.
>
> Now that I've spent the last year writing in 1st, I can go back and
> muddle my way through 3rd with varying degrees of success. It still
> never feels as easy to write as 1st, however.
>
> Any thoughts on that article?
I don't think much of it myself, but it's only a short blurb that's
not meant to be taken too seriously. Read it and use it, or don't.
I'd say that you stop being a complete beginner when you're ready to
decide for yourself what voice to write in.