On Characters - A Rant In Two Parts

[James]

I know my fellow Robust members like a good rant (regardless of whether they agree or not) so here's a couple of things I had to get off my chest recently:

http://www.jameseverington.blogspot.c...

[J.A.]

RE: Rant #1

Normally, I'm obsessed with character, but genre and intent of the piece makes a big difference. Some stories are going more archetypal or metaphoric or whatever. As you note, too much character development can occasionally undermine the thematic goals of the work.

I was thinking about this recently when I read a police procedural that would have benefited from considerably less character work as it just wasn't as interesting as the central mystery. I actually prefer my mysteries and thrillers with character work, but this was one case where it didn't work as well.

RE: Rant #2

Likable's nice.
Interesting's nice, too.

Arguably the latter is even more important. A likable but boring character generally engages me less than an unlikable but interesting character.

[Andre Jute]

Normally I'm in your chorus, James, but on this occasion you're starting from the wrong premise.

The purpose of the class of fiction that needs "realistic" characters isn't to make them realistic in any exhaustively complete sense. That would be impossible. (Not to mention dull.) The purpose is instead to make them believable, credible.

Not that in this instance it matters, because you've arrived at the right answer anyway.

[James]

Andre -

Yes you're quite right with that distinction. In fact I think sometimes less is more, when depicting credible characters. One well thought out gesture or action at a time of stress can reveal as much if not more as any amount of back-story...

[Andre Jute]

James wrote: "I think sometimes less is more, when depicting credible characters. One well thought out gesture or action at a time of stress can reveal as much if not more as any amount of back-story... "

Of course, to arrive at the one definitively shaping gesture or action, you must know vastly more about your character than is in the book. Graham Greene, according to my protege Dakota Franklin, said something really useful about this: Unless you know where your character gets his shirts laundered, you can't convey his essence to the reader. (Paraphrased, not a direct quote.) Greene shorthanded this as the Loucheness Factor. Someone who listened to great effect if crude application of the Greene rule was Ian Fleming, the creator of James Bond.

Of course, in your chosen metier of the short story all these requirements are excruciatingly intensified; the necessity for instant characterisation is one of the demands on the writer that makes a good short story so difficult to write.

[Sharon]

Good rant, James. When one is writing and thinking about their writing, they aught not to focus too much on the 'shoulds' they have learned but rather which, if any, of the perceived 'shoulds' fit the story ~ or the intent of the story.

As a reader I usually prefer believable characters, but there are times when a really out-there character is so fascinating I am transfixed... And occasionally edified...