before you write the first word.I was advised at Breadloaf Writer's Conference by a famous writer that I should know my characters very well indeed. That I should know what he/she ate for breakfast and what their closets look like.
Now Robert Boswell, in his THE HALF-KNOWN WORLD: On Writing Fiction suggests something very different.
"The listing of characteristics in advance of real narrative exploration tends to cut a character off at the knees. Such a character may be complicated but is rarely complex. Moreover, such characters tend to become narrower as the narrative progresses."
This resonates with me. The work of Alfred Hitchcock, who planned every scene of a movie before he started shooting, is a good example. Although his work is interesting for the exciting plots, he rarely created an compelling character. And when he did, say in Rear Window, the character bled through from the original work. Movies are not the same as fiction, of course. The actor himself contributes to the process as well. But you get the idea.
What do you think? How do you work? How much do you know about Sam Adler when you typed the first word? Do you discover him along the way or bring him in fully formed.
14 comments:
That's why we do multiple drafts...so you can let your characters flesh out if they want, and you can cut them back (however painfully) when they become a bit too fleshy, when they do.
Writes the man who mostly writes vignettes.
I think it depends on the writer. I like to flesh out my characters so I can understand their motivation and make sure their actions and dialogue fits with who they are. Even for minor characters. Otherwise
I think the most important question for any character is not "who?" but "why?" Why are they the way they are? Why do they do what they do? Do what works for you-- flesh them out or not, but I really think you should be able to answer 'why' they are.
I tend to list a few things from the start, but I learn and discover much more as I write. Often I have to go back and tweak earlier scenes when I discover something new.
I think, for me, there's a certain critical mass of detail I need to know about a character before I sit down at the keyboard, but I try not to sketch them out much beyond that ahead of time. I find that they come across a whole lot more true to life if they develop organically; in fact, I find it difficult to give a character any sort of transformative arc if they are too cemented in my mind as being a certain way.
my characters evolve as the story gets written. what seemed natural in the beginning may need to be reassessed later.
I never perceive the characteristics. I prefer them to cope with situations as they occur.
I write as a reader - as I like to see the character and the story develop.
I have never known how my books end until I've got there. Nor have I any idea who lives or dies.
I guess it's just that I have an aversion to reading the last pages before I've started a book - in my view it kills the book. So that's the way I work.
I don't exactly do multiple drafts. I rewrite from start everyday and add in nuance and plot changes. But when I first sit down, I have very little idea other than a scene that begins it and that's always my first scene. This is in short stories. I still have no handle on the process for novels.
My characters slowly become fleshed out as I write the story, their particular quirks coming unexpectedly.
Brilliant piece of work at Yellow Mama, Patti.
I'm sure that different methods work for different writers, but my own approach is the same as Patti's. Half way in to the book I'm working on, I'm having to reassess a couple of the characters to make sure they seem 'right'.
I know my main characters pretty well when I start a work but if I do the job correctly they will grow and become more than I originally envisioned. I guess the initial idea is the bare bones but the flesh only comes in the writing, both with characters and plot.
Thanks, Barbara. I guess there may be only one way to ride a bike but many ways to write fiction.
Patti,
I'm more with your: I have a good idea of a character and the backstory before I start writing. However, as the novel progresses, things change and other things come to light that I never intended. One character from my first book--Harry Truman's fictional partner--was just the guy Truman needed to talk with. However, as the fictional partner started talking, walking, and breathing, he took on a life of his own, so much so that he changed some of the trajectory of the novel. For the better. I love it when characters speak for themselves in our minds. It's the mysterious thing that doesn't have a name that makes writing just so dang fun.
Exactly, Scott. Only one time did it work in a bad way although that's the story I had in Murdaland. The guy was just too nasty to let out of the box. And I never will again.
I appear to be pretty much in the mainstream, though I think Chris and I are closest. I have a good idea of the eneral personalisy and backstory of the major characters, but don't want to be too locked down, as it can limit their development as the story progresses. The character may develop a mannerism that is useful as the story progresses; his entire personality and life history may have to be rewritten if needed, though I'm more likely at that point to fire him and create someone new.
There's always the example of Elmore Leonard, who had a character who was going nowhere. Didn't want to do anything interesting, didn't even have anything interesting to say, which is death in a Leonard novel. So he changed the guy's name, and all of a sudden, he was interesting and was actually promoted to a more important part.
So I'd vote in favor of not getting too locked down.
Post a Comment