I procrastinate by
reading Amazon reviews, and I'm always surprised at how five-star reviews of
pretty much any popular novel admire the sympathetic, well-drawn characters
with psychological depth who grow and change and the one-star reviews of the
same book complain about boring, one-dimensional characters who never grow and
in addition are raving Mary Sues or eternal bratty adolescents. It seems that
1) characterization makes or breaks readers' experience of a book and 2) the
qualities people react to aren't adequately covered by the usual
formulas.
So I tried to figure out
some of the factors that go into this, from my perspective:
1. Descriptions of characters. In high school English classes, I'd be surprised at how my classmates would completely ignore authors' complex, thoughtful descriptions of *what kind of people the characters were* and judge the characters entirely based on how they acted. Probably because I'm lazy, I actually prefer telling to showing. A well-written character portrait goes much further toward making me feel that a character is a distinctive individual than a set of choices, especially when those choices fall well within the conventions of the genre.
1. Descriptions of characters. In high school English classes, I'd be surprised at how my classmates would completely ignore authors' complex, thoughtful descriptions of *what kind of people the characters were* and judge the characters entirely based on how they acted. Probably because I'm lazy, I actually prefer telling to showing. A well-written character portrait goes much further toward making me feel that a character is a distinctive individual than a set of choices, especially when those choices fall well within the conventions of the genre.
I realized at some
point on the way to my English degree that that's the reason I liked A Portrait
of a Lady by Henry James when it's what I think I hate in a book--pure realism,
people ruining their lives over their stupid love lives. The narrator and all
of the characters are always describing one another, so instead of having to
build impressions of characters from the ground up, I can try to form a more
complete picture from a variety of different people's clever ideas. So a
character described in great detail might strike me as well-developed and
another person as flat.
2. The flip side of that -- what the character does and what happens to them, viewed from the outside. Unless the author has a main character do something really unusual, I tend to feel that that character is just being a generic person doing the things main characters are expected to do-- experiencing grief, being courageous in spite of fear, falling in love, etcetera -- unless the author or another character points out the implications of her actions explicitly. That character would strike me as flat, while a different reader would see lots of depth and change.
2. The flip side of that -- what the character does and what happens to them, viewed from the outside. Unless the author has a main character do something really unusual, I tend to feel that that character is just being a generic person doing the things main characters are expected to do-- experiencing grief, being courageous in spite of fear, falling in love, etcetera -- unless the author or another character points out the implications of her actions explicitly. That character would strike me as flat, while a different reader would see lots of depth and change.
For me, this is
Chekhov. I remember one college seminar where I thought "these boring
people are falling in love and it's never going to work because it's Chekhov,
and also btw the only women he doesn't hold in contempt are sensitive waifs who
never do anything coarse like gulp down water or think they're smart" (ok,
maybe I'm being a little unfair and off-topic, but…) and when I got to class
everyone had these amazing comments that brought out all sorts of subtleties of
emotion and relationship dynamics I would never have thought of, because
Chekhov is much heavier on showing than telling.
3. Type of language the narrator or character uses to describe characters' feelings and ideas. Different people, different social groups express the same thoughts and feelings in very different ways. What seems deep to one person may be opaque or hackneyed to the next because they're speaking in different cultural codes.
4. Overlap of the reader's emotions and experiences. I think we judge characters on whether we're like them (in decision-making processes, life story, tastes, coping mechanisms, emotions, what have you). Characters too different from us can seem shallow, infuriating, or hard to believe.
5. Detail about psychological states--or more generally, how vividly and in what ways the author evokes the feeling of what it is like to be the character. A character whose author doesn't let you into their body or their head very much may seem shallow or boring to one reader because that reader really wants to get into the character's skin, while other readers might feel distracted from the big picture by too much psychological or emotional detail.
6. Differentiation. Can the author write many different kinds of people or do the characters all deal with the same sets of issues, speak the same language, think the same types of thoughts?
7. Universality versus
uniqueness. I tend to find characters well-developed when they are very
distinctive and I can look at what they do and say "Yes, that's exactly
so-and-so." Whereas some people, I think, find greater depth in more
anonymous characters who are defined not by the ways their heads work but by
the experiences they have -- experiences that shape them in
"universally" human, relatable ways.
Just some thoughts…. I'd
be very interested in other people's ideas or examples on this!
I'm of the opinion that characters aren't characters until they're people. Readers will forgive you if not all of your character's history comes out, as long as they're real enough you can actually imagine them in real life. When I'm starting a new book, I take my characters everywhere I go--to the grocery store, to church, running outdoors with me... I have to see how they'll react to each circumstance, and I don't force the answers. I wait until they tell me. Flat characters are symptom of not having lived in the real world methinks.
ReplyDeleteI'm not a fan of telling when it comes to characters. I'd love insight into their head, and it's great when a secondary character tells us through their thoughts what they think of the person, but in reality, I'd rather see the person through their actions. Actions are a result of a person's core values.
I love taking my characters with me :) Though sometimes I think my husband wonders why things are so crowded in my head...
DeleteThanks for the response!! I'm Nora, and I love the idea of taking characters with you-- never done it myself, but I want to try now!
ReplyDeleteI think you have the "high ground," if there is any in such a subjective area, regarding showing vs. telling. It's sure true that in real life actions speak louder than words. My reaction mostly shows a way in which I'm a lazy reader, but I guess I also wanted to speak up as someone who is NOT allergic to description, as long as it isn't too cliche :).
Humor goes a long way in making me feel like I'm reading a real character. Also sarcasm- prolly b/c I'm very sarcastic. At least in my head anyway! =)
ReplyDeleteI definitely like some humor! I wish I were better at writing it though--it's hard!
DeleteI like getting inside the head of a character, using various ways to flesh them out, develop them, even through writing exercises that no one else will ever read. It ends up giving them more depth that way when you work with them.
ReplyDeleteAnd then the characters go ahead and do something that their writer didn't intend for them. So who's really in charge? The writer or the character?
Hah! That is definitely a good question! I wonder at times, because more often than not, I have absolutely no idea... :)
DeleteWhat a great post! Nora did an excellent job explaining her thoughts and providing examples. :)
ReplyDeleteI like characters to be distinct too. They can be distinct in big ways like their views and actions, or little ways like little quirks they have (always using chapstick or something like that). I definitely tend to prefer characters I can relate to, but I can relate to so many and they can have such different personalities.
Great post! Thanks for making me thing. :)
Chapstick! I've used that one :) (Probably because I'm addicted to the stuff myself!)
DeleteIt's interesting what makes characterization and how an author builds a character. This is very important. I sometimes stop reading a book if the characterization isn't strong. I might only finish it if the action is non-stop, but I want the characters to jump off the pages.
ReplyDeleteI completely understand. I'm having that trouble with what I'm reading right now actually--I just can't get into the story with some really flat characters...
DeleteI so needed this post! I enjoyed every single word of it, continuously nodding my head in agreement. Finally someone who speaks my language! I'm all for psychological depth over plot driven action with characters who are real and *gasp* unlikeable. Different readers respond to different things, but the crux of this post reminds me - you have to write for you. Sure, it may not be popular. It may not sell. But staying true to yourself and connecting with that segment of readers who get you is what it's all about.
ReplyDeleteI'm so glad this hit home for you, Faith! It's a great post, I thought!
DeleteHi, this is a late-coming Nora. I'm delighted you related to my post so strongly! And I'm very much with you that you have to write for yourself :)
DeleteRe other comments, I think humor's a big help (both the character's own and the author's at the character's expense....). And I too really enjoy character exercises (I give mine personality tests). Characterization is so important however you go about it, and it's interesting to think about :).
Anyway, thanks to everyone who commented and thank you so much for having me, Meradeth!