When it comes to good fiction, an old adage goes 'a story is only as good as its villain (or hero).' And so many of us have what we consider great ideas for stories, at least until we put pen to paper.
In previous entries we talked about conflict, using your experiences and the world at large to inspire you. But what if we have a decent start on a plot and know our conflict, our theme? Most likely the obstacle is your character(s).There is just about as much advice on this topic as there are characters in fiction, but some basic truths undergird the subject.
Characters need to be convincing. That doesn't need to mean that they can't make what the author would consider ridiculous decisions. John Steinbeck said that only when dialogue is spoken aloud does it become speech. And similarly, Joseph L. Mankiewicz said that "realist" dialogue doesn't exist, we are all actors. And that is how you should be considering your characters.
In previous entries we talked about conflict, using your experiences and the world at large to inspire you. But what if we have a decent start on a plot and know our conflict, our theme? Most likely the obstacle is your character(s).There is just about as much advice on this topic as there are characters in fiction, but some basic truths undergird the subject.
Characters need to be convincing. That doesn't need to mean that they can't make what the author would consider ridiculous decisions. John Steinbeck said that only when dialogue is spoken aloud does it become speech. And similarly, Joseph L. Mankiewicz said that "realist" dialogue doesn't exist, we are all actors. And that is how you should be considering your characters.
First, don't write some stuck up "poetic" diatribe because you think it sounds intelligent and you want to appear so through your writing. Would your character say that? Would you even say that? Make your dialogue sound natural, something you envision someone saying. Further, know what your character would say? Would your character order a hotdog from a street vendor and in such a genteel way say "Excuse me, do you have any Grey Poupon?" Or would your character look down at the hot dog and shout "Where the *^(! is the damn mustard?!" See my point?
As we dig deeper into the character, why would he prefer to ask for Grey Poupon instead of roaring about the mustard? Were his parents educated and well employed people of high social status? Or did his parents leave him at the doorstep of an adoption center and he spent his life bouncing around through the state systems? What is the backstory?
That leads me to the second point.
As we dig deeper into the character, why would he prefer to ask for Grey Poupon instead of roaring about the mustard? Were his parents educated and well employed people of high social status? Or did his parents leave him at the doorstep of an adoption center and he spent his life bouncing around through the state systems? What is the backstory?
That leads me to the second point.
Even though your reader may not know directly, every character has a story. It isn't necessary to relay all of that information to the reader, but as an author, you need to know it. Our angry man with the hotdog: is he angry because he really wanted mustard? Or is he angry that he paid for the hotdog with mustard but the vendor didn't follow through? Our angry man can have a strong cultural feeling about the necessity of mustard on hotdogs, or he can feel anxious about the social contract and its breakdown in his experience.
We could go on for a long time like this, but the idea should hopefully be hitting home now. If your plot calls for Man to meet Woman and then betray her but go through a development and turn it all around in the end, we need to know why the man betrayed her. Sure, it could be because a gorgeous woman tricked him, but why was he able to be tricked? Did he simply fall for a beautiful woman because he was not used to that sort of attention?
The caveat to all of this is that as Guy de Maupassant said: "you must render, never report."
Like computer coding, a program comes together from a summation of all of its parts. There isn't a "holy grail" singularity that IS the program. Rather, it is a symphony of components working in unison. A character must be rendered through gradual construction of his pieces, not through a single gospel that reports it at once.
Don't bore the reader to death with explication for a character's decision or thought (which is a whole other article). Instead, let it come through in dialogue or description. The first paragraph of American Gods by Neil Gaiman says more about character than 2 pages of explanation.
-M
We could go on for a long time like this, but the idea should hopefully be hitting home now. If your plot calls for Man to meet Woman and then betray her but go through a development and turn it all around in the end, we need to know why the man betrayed her. Sure, it could be because a gorgeous woman tricked him, but why was he able to be tricked? Did he simply fall for a beautiful woman because he was not used to that sort of attention?
The caveat to all of this is that as Guy de Maupassant said: "you must render, never report."
Like computer coding, a program comes together from a summation of all of its parts. There isn't a "holy grail" singularity that IS the program. Rather, it is a symphony of components working in unison. A character must be rendered through gradual construction of his pieces, not through a single gospel that reports it at once.
Don't bore the reader to death with explication for a character's decision or thought (which is a whole other article). Instead, let it come through in dialogue or description. The first paragraph of American Gods by Neil Gaiman says more about character than 2 pages of explanation.
-M