Lastly there is the question of morals. Now it might seem obvious that good guys do good thing and bad guys do bad things. Of course we both know people are never that simple. Developing a moral code (meaning what they consider wrong and what they would do in their attempts to fulfill their desires) can really make a character feel real. To do that you need to ask yourself a few simple questions. What would this character consider bending the rules? What would they consider crossing the line? What would make this character cross the line? Almost every character, even villains, have a moral code. Remember a good villain always thinks they are doing the right thing, even if no one else does. Of course once you know a character’s moral boundaries, feel free to push them to the edge or push them across it. Which one you do write is often a reflection of the type of story you’re trying to tell. "Darker and edgier" stories will more often reach that line and force characters to cross it.
As suggested by Loral in the comment below try checking out Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development. See where your character falls. Do they have a black and white morality scale? Or are they all shades o' grey?
Ultimately, as you can see, a lot of different elements go into making a well-developed characters. If you want to make a dynamic character you’ll really need to pull from the elements you made up here. Make them confront their past. Push them to do something they consider wrong because they feel they have too. Give them their wants and needs and let them hate it. Even static characters benefit from this level of development if they will be a main focus of your story. Remember the only difference is that the events in the story won’t change your character significantly.
Second and tertiary characters are also help by in-depth development. Doing it can help not just a subplot, but your main plot too. The world feels more real, the plot more dynamic and by giving these characters firm goals, needs and personalities you avoid making your main character seem like a Mary Sue.
So in review, you need to look at the character's personality, background info, relationships, life events, the goals, wants and need as well as their moral code, doing so will help you create a fully developed character.
Monday, December 27, 2010
Basics: Characters (Needs)
This section continues our discussion of how to build characters.
As mentioned in the previous post, this post will being covering characters’ needs, fears, wants and goals, in other words their motivation. A character’s needs, wants, fears and goals push the story and create conflict. They drive the story into action.
1. Needs: A great place to build ideas for your characters’ needs is Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Is the character homeless? Then they might need shelter. Is the character abused? Safety. Often times the lower down on the pyramid the need is, the more dramatic and the stronger desire the character has. Also note that characters can have more then one need and that some needs can be met with relative ease and others cannot. Those that cannot often, and probably should, drive the story on an obvious or underlying level. Needs can also manifest themselves in fears.
2. Fears: Not fears like being afraid of spiders, but fears like being afraid to disappoint a parent. Maybe the main characters refusal to leave her horrible job is because she is afraid to disappoint her father. Perhaps she’s afraid to let anyone see her without makeup because if she does she thinks no one will ever love her.
3. Wants and Goals: Needs can be unconscious, but wants and especially goals rarely are. However, passionate goals and wants commonly (but not always) reflect an inner a need or fear. Maybe Sally really wants to win the gymnastic tournament because her self esteem is derived from it.
These are the issues that drive the story. You don’t need to know your character's every need and desire before starting, but at least thinking about it can help you bring real emotional depth and meaning to your story.
So how do you find conflict using your character's needs, wants and fears? As you write and explore your characters examine their areas to see if they can be exploited for plot and drama. That can mean keeping them unsuccessful at reaching a goal, but it could also mean giving the character what they think they need/want. Remember that what a character thinks they need/want might not actually be what will make them happy. As such you can make reaching their goal not what they expect or exactly what they expected, but they find themselves disappointed. Think of the movie Megamind, where the titular character gets exactly want he thinks he wants and he ends up hating it. If you do this in your story examine how your the characters feels about reaching their goal. What are their reactions? Was it what they expected and hoped for?
In reverse use the characters fear of something to drive a plot point, wreck a relationship or any number of awful things. Though for a twist, maybe the worse happens, but it turns out to not be so bad. Or even better in the long run.
As for reaching their goals in general there are a few things to keep in mind. From a story standpoint, the after effect of reaching their goal really depends on how easy the goal was obtained. A major goal/need/want gained easily should rarely be what they expected or make them happy (a la Megamind). However even reaching a hard earned goal can also be subverted, like Jack Kelley in Newsies, who despite wanting to move to Santa Fa the whole movie turns down the chance to go in the end. This is often because as characters develop and change throughout the story their wants and needs change too as do their life situations. These changes should reflect in their reaction to reaching their goal. Jack didn't end up leaving because during the course of the movie he had found the family that had truly wanted and needed. It wasn't that he didn't want to go to Santa Fa anymore, it was that staying allowed him to fulfill a greater need.
There is also another way to use needs to create conflict. Want to know the way to get good conflict between the protagonist and the antagonist? Have their needs, wants and/or goals be incompatible. Their needs could be completely unrelated (i.e. one needs acceptance from friends, the other needs higher self esteem), they could be exactly the same (i.e. both want to get the best part in a ballet), related to each other (i.e. one needs to feel in control and thus tries to become immortal, the other needs to stop the antagonist from threatening their lives and the lives of the people they care about) or in direct opposition (one needs to ensure that a building survives, the other needs to ensure it gets torn down).
As mentioned in the previous post, this post will being covering characters’ needs, fears, wants and goals, in other words their motivation. A character’s needs, wants, fears and goals push the story and create conflict. They drive the story into action.
1. Needs: A great place to build ideas for your characters’ needs is Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Is the character homeless? Then they might need shelter. Is the character abused? Safety. Often times the lower down on the pyramid the need is, the more dramatic and the stronger desire the character has. Also note that characters can have more then one need and that some needs can be met with relative ease and others cannot. Those that cannot often, and probably should, drive the story on an obvious or underlying level. Needs can also manifest themselves in fears.
2. Fears: Not fears like being afraid of spiders, but fears like being afraid to disappoint a parent. Maybe the main characters refusal to leave her horrible job is because she is afraid to disappoint her father. Perhaps she’s afraid to let anyone see her without makeup because if she does she thinks no one will ever love her.
3. Wants and Goals: Needs can be unconscious, but wants and especially goals rarely are. However, passionate goals and wants commonly (but not always) reflect an inner a need or fear. Maybe Sally really wants to win the gymnastic tournament because her self esteem is derived from it.
These are the issues that drive the story. You don’t need to know your character's every need and desire before starting, but at least thinking about it can help you bring real emotional depth and meaning to your story.
So how do you find conflict using your character's needs, wants and fears? As you write and explore your characters examine their areas to see if they can be exploited for plot and drama. That can mean keeping them unsuccessful at reaching a goal, but it could also mean giving the character what they think they need/want. Remember that what a character thinks they need/want might not actually be what will make them happy. As such you can make reaching their goal not what they expect or exactly what they expected, but they find themselves disappointed. Think of the movie Megamind, where the titular character gets exactly want he thinks he wants and he ends up hating it. If you do this in your story examine how your the characters feels about reaching their goal. What are their reactions? Was it what they expected and hoped for?
In reverse use the characters fear of something to drive a plot point, wreck a relationship or any number of awful things. Though for a twist, maybe the worse happens, but it turns out to not be so bad. Or even better in the long run.
As for reaching their goals in general there are a few things to keep in mind. From a story standpoint, the after effect of reaching their goal really depends on how easy the goal was obtained. A major goal/need/want gained easily should rarely be what they expected or make them happy (a la Megamind). However even reaching a hard earned goal can also be subverted, like Jack Kelley in Newsies, who despite wanting to move to Santa Fa the whole movie turns down the chance to go in the end. This is often because as characters develop and change throughout the story their wants and needs change too as do their life situations. These changes should reflect in their reaction to reaching their goal. Jack didn't end up leaving because during the course of the movie he had found the family that had truly wanted and needed. It wasn't that he didn't want to go to Santa Fa anymore, it was that staying allowed him to fulfill a greater need.
There is also another way to use needs to create conflict. Want to know the way to get good conflict between the protagonist and the antagonist? Have their needs, wants and/or goals be incompatible. Their needs could be completely unrelated (i.e. one needs acceptance from friends, the other needs higher self esteem), they could be exactly the same (i.e. both want to get the best part in a ballet), related to each other (i.e. one needs to feel in control and thus tries to become immortal, the other needs to stop the antagonist from threatening their lives and the lives of the people they care about) or in direct opposition (one needs to ensure that a building survives, the other needs to ensure it gets torn down).
Basics: Characters (Character profiles)
The thing about creating characters is that everyone does it differently. One common and useful way are Character Profiles. A character profile is a document which profiles a character, just like a criminal might have a profile. They include the physical, the intangible and the characters history (or back-story). Character profiles, for some, are quite easy and are the first thing they make up. Those people often have pages upon pages of background information on their character. Others, like myself, work best by writing to discover their character. Obviously then what might work well for me won’t work for you. Either way being familiar, at least, with the general themes and question for a character profile can be very helpful while writing.
However, I feel the need to note, there can be a danger in creating character profiles first or too detailed. You can become blocked in by the desire not to contradict the information you've written in your character profile (if that happens don't be afraid to ignore your profile). Furthermore, sometimes it’s fun to let the character reveal their history to you as you write. However, if you prefer more specific and detail questions, there are other places online to find much more comprehensive questionnaires.
Anyway, in an attempt to avoid pigeonholing (and because I generally dislike character profiles longer then a paragraph), I’m just going to address some basic considerations to keep in mind before, during and after you start writing.
1. Personality: What is their general personality like? Introverted? Extroverted? Happy? Sad? Is the way they act outwardly the same as how they feel inside? Just a feel for the character's general demeanor is often good enough to begin with.
2. Background info: What socio-economic class and/or culture does this character come from? What is their job? Religious beliefs? Age group? Do they have any physical or mental disabilities or abnormalities? Are any of their lifestyle choices different from the norm? (Do they live in a commune? Are they vegetarian? A drag queen?) How do these answers affect their worldview?
3. Relationships: What are the most important relationships in their lives? Are these relationships negative or positive? Are they any relationships that were important but have fallen apart? How did they fall apart and what was the impact of that on the characters? This includes friends and family.
4. Life Events: What are a few life-shifting events that have happened to the character? How where they affected? (These events don’t have to be traumatic or unusual, they just have to have had a great impact on their lives, mentally and/or physically).
5. Morals: What do they consider right? What do they consider wrong? What would cause them to cross that line? (More on this in a later post).
5. Fears/Needs/Wants: What does the character truly want? What do they think they want? What do they need? What do they think they need? What are they afraid of? Not fears like being afraid of spiders, but inner fears. (This will be covered more thoroughly in the next post)
These questions don’t need complete answers before you write. They are just meant to help guide you to think three dimensionally. Keep in mind you can also build conflict from your answers. It can be a sideline plot (Does the atheist in catholic family run into any trouble?) or the major plot (The character's quest for a promotion at work and how that changes their life). Of course there are more questions to ask, questions like: What is their middle name? What are their hobbies? What’s their favorite color? What are they afraid of (on a superficial level)? Etc. Though these are fun details to make up, most of these questions don’t have to be answered before hand, just discovered as needed. In fact in can be very freeing while you write.
However, I feel the need to note, there can be a danger in creating character profiles first or too detailed. You can become blocked in by the desire not to contradict the information you've written in your character profile (if that happens don't be afraid to ignore your profile). Furthermore, sometimes it’s fun to let the character reveal their history to you as you write. However, if you prefer more specific and detail questions, there are other places online to find much more comprehensive questionnaires.
Anyway, in an attempt to avoid pigeonholing (and because I generally dislike character profiles longer then a paragraph), I’m just going to address some basic considerations to keep in mind before, during and after you start writing.
1. Personality: What is their general personality like? Introverted? Extroverted? Happy? Sad? Is the way they act outwardly the same as how they feel inside? Just a feel for the character's general demeanor is often good enough to begin with.
2. Background info: What socio-economic class and/or culture does this character come from? What is their job? Religious beliefs? Age group? Do they have any physical or mental disabilities or abnormalities? Are any of their lifestyle choices different from the norm? (Do they live in a commune? Are they vegetarian? A drag queen?) How do these answers affect their worldview?
3. Relationships: What are the most important relationships in their lives? Are these relationships negative or positive? Are they any relationships that were important but have fallen apart? How did they fall apart and what was the impact of that on the characters? This includes friends and family.
4. Life Events: What are a few life-shifting events that have happened to the character? How where they affected? (These events don’t have to be traumatic or unusual, they just have to have had a great impact on their lives, mentally and/or physically).
5. Morals: What do they consider right? What do they consider wrong? What would cause them to cross that line? (More on this in a later post).
5. Fears/Needs/Wants: What does the character truly want? What do they think they want? What do they need? What do they think they need? What are they afraid of? Not fears like being afraid of spiders, but inner fears. (This will be covered more thoroughly in the next post)
These questions don’t need complete answers before you write. They are just meant to help guide you to think three dimensionally. Keep in mind you can also build conflict from your answers. It can be a sideline plot (Does the atheist in catholic family run into any trouble?) or the major plot (The character's quest for a promotion at work and how that changes their life). Of course there are more questions to ask, questions like: What is their middle name? What are their hobbies? What’s their favorite color? What are they afraid of (on a superficial level)? Etc. Though these are fun details to make up, most of these questions don’t have to be answered before hand, just discovered as needed. In fact in can be very freeing while you write.
Basics: Characters (Type)
Basics: Characters (Types)
So now that you’ve learned how not to make a character (in my series on Mary Sues) we are going to address how to make characters. In this post I’m going to cover the different types of characters that exist in your story, introducing useful character terms beyond Mary Sue. In the following post I’ll write about how to build a characters from scratch. This is just a generally introduction to character, I have more in-depth post written about heroes and villains, likely more will follow.
First there are the obvious terms, namely the protagonist and the antagonist. These two characters often get assigned the roles of being good and evil respectively, however that just is not the case. Properly a protagonist is the nothing more then the central character of the story. The antagonist, in contrast, is the character (or even force) that is in conflict with or working against the protagonist. The protagonist could be a rival ballerina, who despite being perfect nice, is just a better dancer then the main character. Of course there is more drama in making the antagonist a negative character and as such it is commonly done.
Another thing of note is the point of view (POV) character. Again this position is often assigned to the main character, but that is not always the case. A story can completely lack a POV character or there can be many. A POV character is nothing more then a character used by the writer to explore the story. By that I mean, the character whose point of view is being used to experience a scene, chapter or book. There can be twenty POV characters or just one.
Next there is another pair of character types, Static and Dynamic. Static characters experience no significant change throughout the course of the story. They are the same at the beginning as they are at the end and there is nothing wrong with that. If their interesting enough they work just find as main characters. Sherlock Holmes is largely a static character and any changes that have been found are slow developments over the course of the many short stories and books. Dynamic characters on the other hand change, and often quite a lot. Keep in mind the change doesn’t have to be for the betterment of a character, it just has to occur for the character to fit the definition.
Again, in contrast, there are cardboard/flat characters and round characters. Cardboard characters can be thought of as cardboard cutouts. They are defined and identified by only one real feature. It could, in theory, be nothing more then their hair color or a limp or their constant weeping. Flat characters on the other hand often have a few noticeable features. Obviously neither one of these types would work well in a long piece as protagonist, they often aren’t interesting enough to hold up a book. However they could work in short stories quite well. Similarly there are stock characters. Stock characters are basically flat characters; the main difference is that their few traits are so familiar that the audience will recognize them. They often show up in similar worlds and situations across books or even media. Examples include the mean librarian or jerk jock. Often times a stock character can be used as a starting point to develop an interesting fully developed character. Round characters, on the other hand, are fully developed, possessing back-story, flaws and strengths.
Lastly there are the extras. They often are cardboard characters and are mainly there to add to the realism of the scene or mood (i.e. set the scene). They might be guardsmen, farmers, shoppers or schoolchildren. These characters might have a couple of lines, but generally they’re the same as movie extras.
In the next post I’ll go over how to build characters. I’ll mainly focus on generally building characters, but I will address a few specific issues to creating the different types of characters.
So now that you’ve learned how not to make a character (in my series on Mary Sues) we are going to address how to make characters. In this post I’m going to cover the different types of characters that exist in your story, introducing useful character terms beyond Mary Sue. In the following post I’ll write about how to build a characters from scratch. This is just a generally introduction to character, I have more in-depth post written about heroes and villains, likely more will follow.
First there are the obvious terms, namely the protagonist and the antagonist. These two characters often get assigned the roles of being good and evil respectively, however that just is not the case. Properly a protagonist is the nothing more then the central character of the story. The antagonist, in contrast, is the character (or even force) that is in conflict with or working against the protagonist. The protagonist could be a rival ballerina, who despite being perfect nice, is just a better dancer then the main character. Of course there is more drama in making the antagonist a negative character and as such it is commonly done.
Another thing of note is the point of view (POV) character. Again this position is often assigned to the main character, but that is not always the case. A story can completely lack a POV character or there can be many. A POV character is nothing more then a character used by the writer to explore the story. By that I mean, the character whose point of view is being used to experience a scene, chapter or book. There can be twenty POV characters or just one.
Next there is another pair of character types, Static and Dynamic. Static characters experience no significant change throughout the course of the story. They are the same at the beginning as they are at the end and there is nothing wrong with that. If their interesting enough they work just find as main characters. Sherlock Holmes is largely a static character and any changes that have been found are slow developments over the course of the many short stories and books. Dynamic characters on the other hand change, and often quite a lot. Keep in mind the change doesn’t have to be for the betterment of a character, it just has to occur for the character to fit the definition.
Again, in contrast, there are cardboard/flat characters and round characters. Cardboard characters can be thought of as cardboard cutouts. They are defined and identified by only one real feature. It could, in theory, be nothing more then their hair color or a limp or their constant weeping. Flat characters on the other hand often have a few noticeable features. Obviously neither one of these types would work well in a long piece as protagonist, they often aren’t interesting enough to hold up a book. However they could work in short stories quite well. Similarly there are stock characters. Stock characters are basically flat characters; the main difference is that their few traits are so familiar that the audience will recognize them. They often show up in similar worlds and situations across books or even media. Examples include the mean librarian or jerk jock. Often times a stock character can be used as a starting point to develop an interesting fully developed character. Round characters, on the other hand, are fully developed, possessing back-story, flaws and strengths.
Lastly there are the extras. They often are cardboard characters and are mainly there to add to the realism of the scene or mood (i.e. set the scene). They might be guardsmen, farmers, shoppers or schoolchildren. These characters might have a couple of lines, but generally they’re the same as movie extras.
In the next post I’ll go over how to build characters. I’ll mainly focus on generally building characters, but I will address a few specific issues to creating the different types of characters.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Updated Posts
So I've just gone though my back log and have made quite a few changes the posts on Why Write?, Inspiration (And Writer's Block), Clichés (and Originality), and the series on Mary Sues. There a quite a few new ideas and thoughts added (especially to the Mary Sue Series and to two on Clichés and Originality). I suggest you go check it out. (Sorry to make you reread, but I promise there is more good info to be had!)
** Yes I did hyperlink those words to the blog post, so no excuses. ;)
** Yes I did hyperlink those words to the blog post, so no excuses. ;)
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Controversy: Teen Writer's Suck?
Now I know I promise to go back to Basics, and don’t worry I intend to, but I wanted to address this blog post I found the other day (I suggest you check it out he covers some areas I left out of this post). The writer, a very published author, states decidedly that teen writers suck. He goes on to add that that isn’t a bad thing. Sucking is a completely normal and important part of being a good writer. As you can imagine, teen writers weren’t very happy about this.
Let me make one thing clear, before I continue, I almost completely agree. I’ve read lots of teen writing, and even when I was a teen I thought most it sucked (of course I didn’t think I sucked, not that I thought I was brilliant, but... this isn’t about me). Anyway I feel the need to qualify his statement.
Hold on folks I’m about to get metaphor CRAZY.
Let’s just say that a well-written novel is like a nice restaurant dinner. Delicious. Let’s say a Pulitzer prizing winning, classic novel, is like a restaurant dinner made by a five star chef. Oh my god, did I just eat heaven? And an average crap story is like eleven-year-old attempt to make a plain chocolate cake that required more then adding water. Uneatable. The average novel written by a teenager with talent is like that cake attempt except eating it won’t give you some kind of food poisoning. In an exceptionally talented teenage writer, the cake might not taste half bad, maybe it’s even quite tasty.
So what point am I trying to make? Well the average talented teen writer, even the exceptionally talented ones, are like that 11 year old that can make maybe a decent cake. However can he make a five-start meal? No. He doesn’t have the skill to. Does that mean he’ll never be able to make one? Of course not. If he works hard, makes lots of mistakes, and trains for years he could definitely be a chef, maybe even a master one. But through that process of learning how not to suck (aka how to cook really really well), he discovers his craft, what inspires him as a chef, his unique style, and how he works best.
So when people say teenage writers suck, they just mean compared to what they can become and compared experienced writers as a whole. Of course, if you narrow the viewing area down and look only at teenage writers. Some stand out as significantly better then their peers and some of them can make tasty cakes that people enjoy. Meaning that teen writers can write something good, but just for their skill level, not compared to how a real chef would make it (which is delicious, uniquely theirs, and expensive). Of course there are the Mozarts and Picassos in writing, but if you compare what they did as children and teens to what they did as adults then the metaphor still stands. Compared to what they became, they still sucked.
Never fear, the metaphor extends to any new writer. Of course when the new comer is an adult, they have the advantage of being older when they try and make their first cake. It might still suck, but given their age and the life experience they already have, they’ll have a good chance of learning faster then their younger brethren that are equally talented. (Of course the whole metaphor isn't prefect as the two crafts are quite different, but I think you guys get the idea.)
But don’t despair my teenage readers! Not getting published at a young age, or as a young writer, is a good thing (which the writer of the above link discusses). And getting your first manuscript (completed novel) published is actually doing you a disservice especially at a young age. Getting rejected teaches new writers three things (and has three other advantage).
1. It teaches you how to have thick skin and not to take criticism so personally that it paralyzes you from writing again or makes you bitter. This is especially crucial as being a published author hardly keeps critics away. In fact it attracts them.
2. Those rejections force the writer to look at their own work and discover their weaknesses. This obviously improves their writing.
3. And when you do finally start getting personalized rejections you’ll not be so sensitive about your work as not to be able to handle constructive criticism. And when you do get an offer and start working with an editor it will be much easier then it would have otherwise been as you're use to people critiquing your work.
4. You don't have to follow up your first book by writing your second manuscript. That is a good thing. If you're writing your second manuscript for publication your worries about duplicating your success and over reactions to criticism of your first book can show in the final piece. When you've written more you'll be more settled in your style and method.
5. The publishing industry can be a scary place and coming in as a teen can and probably will disillusion some people. Having the self assurance and life experience as adult can make that a much smoother and easier transition.
6. Being a skilled writer coming in decreases the chance of your book flopping. The last thing you want to do as a writer, especially a young one, is try to salvage a career that's dead in the water.
So take heart. Sucking is a critical part of becoming a good writer. And if you never try, you’ll never suck and therefore never be amazing.
** Also check out Too Young to Publish
Let me make one thing clear, before I continue, I almost completely agree. I’ve read lots of teen writing, and even when I was a teen I thought most it sucked (of course I didn’t think I sucked, not that I thought I was brilliant, but... this isn’t about me). Anyway I feel the need to qualify his statement.
Hold on folks I’m about to get metaphor CRAZY.
Let’s just say that a well-written novel is like a nice restaurant dinner. Delicious. Let’s say a Pulitzer prizing winning, classic novel, is like a restaurant dinner made by a five star chef. Oh my god, did I just eat heaven? And an average crap story is like eleven-year-old attempt to make a plain chocolate cake that required more then adding water. Uneatable. The average novel written by a teenager with talent is like that cake attempt except eating it won’t give you some kind of food poisoning. In an exceptionally talented teenage writer, the cake might not taste half bad, maybe it’s even quite tasty.
So what point am I trying to make? Well the average talented teen writer, even the exceptionally talented ones, are like that 11 year old that can make maybe a decent cake. However can he make a five-start meal? No. He doesn’t have the skill to. Does that mean he’ll never be able to make one? Of course not. If he works hard, makes lots of mistakes, and trains for years he could definitely be a chef, maybe even a master one. But through that process of learning how not to suck (aka how to cook really really well), he discovers his craft, what inspires him as a chef, his unique style, and how he works best.
So when people say teenage writers suck, they just mean compared to what they can become and compared experienced writers as a whole. Of course, if you narrow the viewing area down and look only at teenage writers. Some stand out as significantly better then their peers and some of them can make tasty cakes that people enjoy. Meaning that teen writers can write something good, but just for their skill level, not compared to how a real chef would make it (which is delicious, uniquely theirs, and expensive). Of course there are the Mozarts and Picassos in writing, but if you compare what they did as children and teens to what they did as adults then the metaphor still stands. Compared to what they became, they still sucked.
Never fear, the metaphor extends to any new writer. Of course when the new comer is an adult, they have the advantage of being older when they try and make their first cake. It might still suck, but given their age and the life experience they already have, they’ll have a good chance of learning faster then their younger brethren that are equally talented. (Of course the whole metaphor isn't prefect as the two crafts are quite different, but I think you guys get the idea.)
But don’t despair my teenage readers! Not getting published at a young age, or as a young writer, is a good thing (which the writer of the above link discusses). And getting your first manuscript (completed novel) published is actually doing you a disservice especially at a young age. Getting rejected teaches new writers three things (and has three other advantage).
1. It teaches you how to have thick skin and not to take criticism so personally that it paralyzes you from writing again or makes you bitter. This is especially crucial as being a published author hardly keeps critics away. In fact it attracts them.
2. Those rejections force the writer to look at their own work and discover their weaknesses. This obviously improves their writing.
3. And when you do finally start getting personalized rejections you’ll not be so sensitive about your work as not to be able to handle constructive criticism. And when you do get an offer and start working with an editor it will be much easier then it would have otherwise been as you're use to people critiquing your work.
4. You don't have to follow up your first book by writing your second manuscript. That is a good thing. If you're writing your second manuscript for publication your worries about duplicating your success and over reactions to criticism of your first book can show in the final piece. When you've written more you'll be more settled in your style and method.
5. The publishing industry can be a scary place and coming in as a teen can and probably will disillusion some people. Having the self assurance and life experience as adult can make that a much smoother and easier transition.
6. Being a skilled writer coming in decreases the chance of your book flopping. The last thing you want to do as a writer, especially a young one, is try to salvage a career that's dead in the water.
So take heart. Sucking is a critical part of becoming a good writer. And if you never try, you’ll never suck and therefore never be amazing.
** Also check out Too Young to Publish
Friday, September 10, 2010
Hot Topics: The Said Debate (Abverbial and Action Tags)
So by now you’re really discouraged and are probably wondering what other ways are there to spice up dialogue.
Well here’s one way,
“Mark, you should go,” Julie said blankly. “It’s your dream. Besides, you’ll never shut up about it if you don’t go.”
“But Julie,” Mark said sadly. “I don’t want to leave you.”
“Mark,” Julie said with annoyance. “Go.”
This an adverbial dialogue tag and it describes the way a character says something. And often these are better then using Said Bookisms. They can be especially useful to give necessary tonal information if the context of the scene or conversation doesn’t. However as you can see in this example, it's easy to over do them too. (These sometime get the nickname Tom Swifties if they're puns. Please be aware of unintended puns, your audience might laugh at you.)
Anyway, in a similar vein you can describe how the words are being said, without the direct tag (this would technically be an action tag). A trick I commonly use.
“But Julie.” His voice trembled slightly. “I don’t want to leave you.”
However just like adverbial tags using these too much, too often can be redundant and lessen their impact. However describing the way something is spoken or using adverbial tags can be especially useful for avoiding those impossible Said Bookisms like ‘she laughed’. For example: “I don’t know.” Her words were breathy, interrupted by laughter. “He just did!” or “I don’t know,” she said brokenly, her words interrupted by her laughter. “He just did!”
My last example is the one I use commonly and that’s the action tag (and again note that action tags are separated from the dialogue by a period, not a coma). Like so...
“Mark you should go.” Julie turned away from him picking out a dirty dish from the sink to wash. “It’s your dream. Besides, you’ll never shut up about it if you don’t go.”
“But Julie.” Mark stepped closer. “I don’t want to leave you.”
“Mark.” Julie glanced up at him. “Go.”
Now action tags are INCREDIBLY useful, they can do double, even triple duty. You can let the action inform the reader who is speaking and the tone of the dialogue. Julie is clearly trying to avoid the issue until Mark insists and won’t let her escape. Mark is feeling like she's not listening to him. This is powerful stuff as it leaves much of the interpretation up to the reader and it's easier to avoid writing things that seem out of character or overly extreme and melodramatic. However these tags can slow the pace of the dialogue down so keep that in mind, especially if it's meant to be a fast exchange or an action scene. They read as a mental pause or beat on the page. It can also have the problem of making your characters seem hyperactive if you over use it. Make sure that every action isn't grand and that you're careful not to describe every subtle movement. That can get very soap opera-y too if over used (think constant zooming in on overly expressive eyes). Sometimes people really are just sitting around, doing nothing, and talking.
Lastly you can even go a few lines without any tags as long as you give the reader enough earlier information to figure out who is speaking. However this can easily become Talking Head Syndrome, which means the character's become nothing more then voices in a vacuum. Action tags can help avoid this by engaging the physical world of your story, but even just regular tags work fine.
One last note, a dialogue tag should never interrupt a complete sentence of dialogue. An action tag can sometimes interrupt a complete sentence, but be aware that it will create a pause in the sentence so make sure it doesn't read weirdly (would someone in real life pause there?). Otherwise use it either between two sentences or before or after one. Putting them between an incomplete and complete sentence can work just keep the pause in mind.
In conclusion there are very few hard and fast rules when to use what tags where. That knowledge is something that comes with experience and settles with the evolution of your personal style or voice.
“Good luck writing.” Fireheart raised a figurative hand in farewell. “And have fun!”
Well here’s one way,
“Mark, you should go,” Julie said blankly. “It’s your dream. Besides, you’ll never shut up about it if you don’t go.”
“But Julie,” Mark said sadly. “I don’t want to leave you.”
“Mark,” Julie said with annoyance. “Go.”
This an adverbial dialogue tag and it describes the way a character says something. And often these are better then using Said Bookisms. They can be especially useful to give necessary tonal information if the context of the scene or conversation doesn’t. However as you can see in this example, it's easy to over do them too. (These sometime get the nickname Tom Swifties if they're puns. Please be aware of unintended puns, your audience might laugh at you.)
Anyway, in a similar vein you can describe how the words are being said, without the direct tag (this would technically be an action tag). A trick I commonly use.
“But Julie.” His voice trembled slightly. “I don’t want to leave you.”
However just like adverbial tags using these too much, too often can be redundant and lessen their impact. However describing the way something is spoken or using adverbial tags can be especially useful for avoiding those impossible Said Bookisms like ‘she laughed’. For example: “I don’t know.” Her words were breathy, interrupted by laughter. “He just did!” or “I don’t know,” she said brokenly, her words interrupted by her laughter. “He just did!”
My last example is the one I use commonly and that’s the action tag (and again note that action tags are separated from the dialogue by a period, not a coma). Like so...
“Mark you should go.” Julie turned away from him picking out a dirty dish from the sink to wash. “It’s your dream. Besides, you’ll never shut up about it if you don’t go.”
“But Julie.” Mark stepped closer. “I don’t want to leave you.”
“Mark.” Julie glanced up at him. “Go.”
Now action tags are INCREDIBLY useful, they can do double, even triple duty. You can let the action inform the reader who is speaking and the tone of the dialogue. Julie is clearly trying to avoid the issue until Mark insists and won’t let her escape. Mark is feeling like she's not listening to him. This is powerful stuff as it leaves much of the interpretation up to the reader and it's easier to avoid writing things that seem out of character or overly extreme and melodramatic. However these tags can slow the pace of the dialogue down so keep that in mind, especially if it's meant to be a fast exchange or an action scene. They read as a mental pause or beat on the page. It can also have the problem of making your characters seem hyperactive if you over use it. Make sure that every action isn't grand and that you're careful not to describe every subtle movement. That can get very soap opera-y too if over used (think constant zooming in on overly expressive eyes). Sometimes people really are just sitting around, doing nothing, and talking.
Lastly you can even go a few lines without any tags as long as you give the reader enough earlier information to figure out who is speaking. However this can easily become Talking Head Syndrome, which means the character's become nothing more then voices in a vacuum. Action tags can help avoid this by engaging the physical world of your story, but even just regular tags work fine.
One last note, a dialogue tag should never interrupt a complete sentence of dialogue. An action tag can sometimes interrupt a complete sentence, but be aware that it will create a pause in the sentence so make sure it doesn't read weirdly (would someone in real life pause there?). Otherwise use it either between two sentences or before or after one. Putting them between an incomplete and complete sentence can work just keep the pause in mind.
In conclusion there are very few hard and fast rules when to use what tags where. That knowledge is something that comes with experience and settles with the evolution of your personal style or voice.
“Good luck writing.” Fireheart raised a figurative hand in farewell. “And have fun!”
Hot Topics: The Said Debate (Said Bookisms)
Just a reminder of our original sentence before we continue with our regularly schedule program:
“But Julie,” Mark said. “I don’t want to leave you.”
So example number 1:
“But Julie,” Mark whined. “I don’t want to leave you.”
Okay. First off whined is a rather strong word and doesn’t leaved much room for depth or interpretation, but you might be asking what's wrong with it? Well, besides being unnecessarily strong and letting no other element of the story contribute to its meaning, let’s look at conversation where every line is written with a Said Bookism.
“Mark, you should go,” Julie intoned. “It’s your dream. Besides, you’ll never shut up about it if you don’t go.”
“But Julie,” Mark whined. “I don’t want to leave you.”
“Mark,” Julie scolded. “Go.”
Do you see the problem now? There’s no subtlety to that conversation. A real conversation, might – might – have one instant where something said deserved the strength of a Said Bookism, but not every conversation and certainly not every line. Let the dialogue breath. That’s not to say you can’t use Said Bookisms at all. What it means is that their use really needs to be extremely limited and should probably be one the uncreative types like yelled or mumbled.
Ah but I’m not done with Said Bookism yet, let’s try one more.
“Mark, you should go,” Julie sighed. “It’s your dream. Besides, you’ll never shut up about it if you don’t go.”
“But Julie,” Mark grimaced. “I don’t want to leave you.”
“Mark,” Julie hissed. “Go.”
Now these might seem like the examples above, but they're not. These little words are actually worse. That’s because that you can’t sigh a sentence, maybe a word (very melodramatically), but not a sentence. Neither can you hiss or grimace one. You also can’t laugh one or sneer one. Basically a good rule of thumb is it if the tag can be done independently of dialogue, it shouldn’t be a dialogue tag. However these peculiar mistakes are often just a result of not understanding how dialogue tags work grammatical. So lets try that scene again, with correct grammar to make them work.
“Mark, you should go.” Julie sighed. “It’s your dream. Besides, you’ll never shut up about it if you don’t go.”
“But Julie.” Mark grimaced. “I don’t want to leave you.”
“Mark.” Julie hissed. “Go.”
Using a period instead of a comma separates the two thoughts, making the "dialogue" tags into to action tags (I’ll get to that next post). The words are no longer describing how the line was said, but an action taking place between, after or before lines. My favorite thing about this example is that it points out the problem with Said Bookisms in general, mainly out how ridiculous they sound. I don’t know why Mark grimaced in the middle of the talking or why Julie hissed, but at least now the described scene is physical possible.
“But Julie,” Mark said. “I don’t want to leave you.”
So example number 1:
“But Julie,” Mark whined. “I don’t want to leave you.”
Okay. First off whined is a rather strong word and doesn’t leaved much room for depth or interpretation, but you might be asking what's wrong with it? Well, besides being unnecessarily strong and letting no other element of the story contribute to its meaning, let’s look at conversation where every line is written with a Said Bookism.
“Mark, you should go,” Julie intoned. “It’s your dream. Besides, you’ll never shut up about it if you don’t go.”
“But Julie,” Mark whined. “I don’t want to leave you.”
“Mark,” Julie scolded. “Go.”
Do you see the problem now? There’s no subtlety to that conversation. A real conversation, might – might – have one instant where something said deserved the strength of a Said Bookism, but not every conversation and certainly not every line. Let the dialogue breath. That’s not to say you can’t use Said Bookisms at all. What it means is that their use really needs to be extremely limited and should probably be one the uncreative types like yelled or mumbled.
Ah but I’m not done with Said Bookism yet, let’s try one more.
“Mark, you should go,” Julie sighed. “It’s your dream. Besides, you’ll never shut up about it if you don’t go.”
“But Julie,” Mark grimaced. “I don’t want to leave you.”
“Mark,” Julie hissed. “Go.”
Now these might seem like the examples above, but they're not. These little words are actually worse. That’s because that you can’t sigh a sentence, maybe a word (very melodramatically), but not a sentence. Neither can you hiss or grimace one. You also can’t laugh one or sneer one. Basically a good rule of thumb is it if the tag can be done independently of dialogue, it shouldn’t be a dialogue tag. However these peculiar mistakes are often just a result of not understanding how dialogue tags work grammatical. So lets try that scene again, with correct grammar to make them work.
“Mark, you should go.” Julie sighed. “It’s your dream. Besides, you’ll never shut up about it if you don’t go.”
“But Julie.” Mark grimaced. “I don’t want to leave you.”
“Mark.” Julie hissed. “Go.”
Using a period instead of a comma separates the two thoughts, making the "dialogue" tags into to action tags (I’ll get to that next post). The words are no longer describing how the line was said, but an action taking place between, after or before lines. My favorite thing about this example is that it points out the problem with Said Bookisms in general, mainly out how ridiculous they sound. I don’t know why Mark grimaced in the middle of the talking or why Julie hissed, but at least now the described scene is physical possible.
Hot Topics: The Said Debate
This one is an interesting topic, in that unlike many of my other Hot Topics it doesn’t have to do with the basic fundamentals of story telling, but rather writing stories. It has to do with tags. I don’t mean tags like twitter, I mean dialogue tags, words likes said, whispered, yelled etc. The problem happens when a writer doesn’t know how to use them or understand how they come across to the reader.
The problem starts at a young age. A well-meaning teacher (or even that well meaning writer friend) tells you not to use the same word over and over again, especial and including the word said. It’s boring they say, repetitive. So you rack your brain for a word you can use instead. That's when you pull out words like murmured, shouted, whispered, cried, thundered etc.
And all that would be true except for one thing- the reader doesn’t read the word said, it’s like leaving a question blank on the SAT, it’s completely neutral. They skim over it. But unfortunately that teacher or writer friend has screwed you over to two fold. That would be because of what you replaced said with. Those “fancy” tags have a name, editors call them ‘Said Bookisms.’ That’s because it’s the literary equivalent of acting in Spanish Soap Operas. No one speaks like that in real life. People rarely yell, much less thunder. These words call attention to themselves, especially the more creative ones, and that generally is bad as it interrupts flow and reader concentration. The only things most of those words are missing are big hair and mustaches.
So how can we fix our mistakes? Well I going to take one line of dialogue and show you what can go wrong with it and then what can go right.
“But Julie,” Mark said. “I don’t want to leave you.”
This is a no frills dialogue here. You know who said it and what was said. With this example the context must tell the reader how it was being said and why. There’s nothing wrong with this at all and is a perfectly acceptable piece of writing, if unremarkable. But because you decided this is boring, in the next couple posts I’m going to change it up a bit.
*** Note: This is likely the most technical/grammatical I'll ever get with writing as a written language in this blog. So breath a sigh of relief if you were worried about it. If you were sad, I would tell you I'm sorry, but I'm not.
The problem starts at a young age. A well-meaning teacher (or even that well meaning writer friend) tells you not to use the same word over and over again, especial and including the word said. It’s boring they say, repetitive. So you rack your brain for a word you can use instead. That's when you pull out words like murmured, shouted, whispered, cried, thundered etc.
And all that would be true except for one thing- the reader doesn’t read the word said, it’s like leaving a question blank on the SAT, it’s completely neutral. They skim over it. But unfortunately that teacher or writer friend has screwed you over to two fold. That would be because of what you replaced said with. Those “fancy” tags have a name, editors call them ‘Said Bookisms.’ That’s because it’s the literary equivalent of acting in Spanish Soap Operas. No one speaks like that in real life. People rarely yell, much less thunder. These words call attention to themselves, especially the more creative ones, and that generally is bad as it interrupts flow and reader concentration. The only things most of those words are missing are big hair and mustaches.
So how can we fix our mistakes? Well I going to take one line of dialogue and show you what can go wrong with it and then what can go right.
“But Julie,” Mark said. “I don’t want to leave you.”
This is a no frills dialogue here. You know who said it and what was said. With this example the context must tell the reader how it was being said and why. There’s nothing wrong with this at all and is a perfectly acceptable piece of writing, if unremarkable. But because you decided this is boring, in the next couple posts I’m going to change it up a bit.
*** Note: This is likely the most technical/grammatical I'll ever get with writing as a written language in this blog. So breath a sigh of relief if you were worried about it. If you were sad, I would tell you I'm sorry, but I'm not.
Hot Topics: Purple Prose (video)
Check out this: Dramatic Reading as this story is perfect example of purple prose, much better then my examples as I've never been a description heavy writer. See if you can find the problems I was talking about.
Hot Topics: Purple Prose (Diction and Similes)
While the last section focused on over description, this section will focus on word choice (diction), and your choice of metaphors or similes. I know your inter-high-schooler just groaned, or if you’re still in high school you did, but it’s an important idea to understand especially to help you avoid purple prose.
So let’s get down to business, here’s my scene:
Josh halted the car, opening the weighty metal door with a wide swing like a baseball bat rushing towards its goal. He took one step out of the car, cowboy boots, deep sloth-brown in color and cracked like the surface of the Grand Canyon, hitting the hard earth. Frowning in a pinched manner, he looked across the wide oranged landscape, the hot desert breeze skating across the azure sky, cloudless like unmarred virgin. He couldn’t imagine how she could ever what to come to this nightmarish place.
Oh god, that might have been one of the most difficult things I’ve ever written and I didn’t even crack open the thesaurus. If you have to try as hard as I just did (which required me to stop writing what came naturally and think of the most “creative” way to word something) then your trying way too hard. That isn’t to say you shouldn’t try and spice up your descriptions, you should, but don’t think of it as a contest to show how amazingly wide your vocabulary is, or how unique or beautiful you can make your descriptions and similes. Your word choice should help set the scene and shouldn’t distract from the narrative, by that I mean the reader shouldn’t be confused or taken out of the story or be laughing at your descriptions. Descriptions are not the time to show off, especially not at the expense of the story.
Diction and metaphor/simile problems, perhaps more so then over describing, are what really call purple prose to the reader’s attention, but fixing these problems are all pretty similar. It’s about knowing how to use what description where. First one needs to look at the word on an individual level. Do you know what the word means? I mean really know what it means? Do you understand all it’s connotations? Do you use this word in real life? If you answered yes to these questions you're probably okay to use that world as more then likely it came to you without much thought, even if it was a replacement word for a boring original choice. But even if you do know what the word means you should still think about what that word is really saying in your sentence. Looking to my example above, a lot of people know what the word halted means, however in that sentence it’s weird. It implies Josh enacted his will upon the car, like a policeman would tell a criminal to halt.
Furthermore let's look at the similes in the example above. They’re weird! They don’t make any sense in the context of the scene. How does comparing the motion of an opening car door and a swinging bat help tell the reader anything about the scene? Now maybe if Josh was using the door as a weapon, that analogy would be more appropriate, but not in this scene. Moreover what do Grand Canyon boots tell us about the character? It’s a very strong metaphor to use on something as unimportant as the character's boots. And don’t even get me started on the virgin sky.
Your metaphors and similes should be appropriate for the tone of the scene/book, the time period it's set in and reveal a quality about what it's being compared to that otherwise would be hard to express in words. And moreover it's a powerful descriptive tool, so save it for a important, dynamic, or interesting moment. Not for boots. Keep these things in mind when using them.
So what’s overall my point? Well, the point is that the writer needs to think about how his descriptions fit into the overall tone and purpose of the scene. Do they reveal something about the character? Do they set the scene or set the mood? The best descriptions serve double duty. Of course description variation is a good thing, but that’s just the toppings on the cake. First and foremost the description should serve the story.
Oh and I almost forgot:
Josh stopped the car and with a hard push opened the door. Stepping out, he took a quick survey of his surroundings. He was in the middle of a desert, the scorched earth spreading infinitely in every direction. It was a desolate place. He couldn’t imagine why she would want to come here.
So let’s get down to business, here’s my scene:
Josh halted the car, opening the weighty metal door with a wide swing like a baseball bat rushing towards its goal. He took one step out of the car, cowboy boots, deep sloth-brown in color and cracked like the surface of the Grand Canyon, hitting the hard earth. Frowning in a pinched manner, he looked across the wide oranged landscape, the hot desert breeze skating across the azure sky, cloudless like unmarred virgin. He couldn’t imagine how she could ever what to come to this nightmarish place.
Oh god, that might have been one of the most difficult things I’ve ever written and I didn’t even crack open the thesaurus. If you have to try as hard as I just did (which required me to stop writing what came naturally and think of the most “creative” way to word something) then your trying way too hard. That isn’t to say you shouldn’t try and spice up your descriptions, you should, but don’t think of it as a contest to show how amazingly wide your vocabulary is, or how unique or beautiful you can make your descriptions and similes. Your word choice should help set the scene and shouldn’t distract from the narrative, by that I mean the reader shouldn’t be confused or taken out of the story or be laughing at your descriptions. Descriptions are not the time to show off, especially not at the expense of the story.
Diction and metaphor/simile problems, perhaps more so then over describing, are what really call purple prose to the reader’s attention, but fixing these problems are all pretty similar. It’s about knowing how to use what description where. First one needs to look at the word on an individual level. Do you know what the word means? I mean really know what it means? Do you understand all it’s connotations? Do you use this word in real life? If you answered yes to these questions you're probably okay to use that world as more then likely it came to you without much thought, even if it was a replacement word for a boring original choice. But even if you do know what the word means you should still think about what that word is really saying in your sentence. Looking to my example above, a lot of people know what the word halted means, however in that sentence it’s weird. It implies Josh enacted his will upon the car, like a policeman would tell a criminal to halt.
Furthermore let's look at the similes in the example above. They’re weird! They don’t make any sense in the context of the scene. How does comparing the motion of an opening car door and a swinging bat help tell the reader anything about the scene? Now maybe if Josh was using the door as a weapon, that analogy would be more appropriate, but not in this scene. Moreover what do Grand Canyon boots tell us about the character? It’s a very strong metaphor to use on something as unimportant as the character's boots. And don’t even get me started on the virgin sky.
Your metaphors and similes should be appropriate for the tone of the scene/book, the time period it's set in and reveal a quality about what it's being compared to that otherwise would be hard to express in words. And moreover it's a powerful descriptive tool, so save it for a important, dynamic, or interesting moment. Not for boots. Keep these things in mind when using them.
So what’s overall my point? Well, the point is that the writer needs to think about how his descriptions fit into the overall tone and purpose of the scene. Do they reveal something about the character? Do they set the scene or set the mood? The best descriptions serve double duty. Of course description variation is a good thing, but that’s just the toppings on the cake. First and foremost the description should serve the story.
Oh and I almost forgot:
Josh stopped the car and with a hard push opened the door. Stepping out, he took a quick survey of his surroundings. He was in the middle of a desert, the scorched earth spreading infinitely in every direction. It was a desolate place. He couldn’t imagine why she would want to come here.
Hot Topics: Purple Prose (Over Use)
So this post will focus on knowing when to use description and how to wield that awesome tool in your belt correctly to get the most bang for your literary buck. To do this I’m going to write an example of poor use of description, then contrast it with a better way to write that scene.
Josh wrapped his well worn hands around the brass doorknob blacken with age. Taking a deep trembling breath, he pushed open the door, the action causing a sharp momentary squeaking from the near hidden hinges. Drawing his eyebrows together he took a small step inside. Before he had made any really distance into the room a voice interrupted him coming from further inside the apartment.
“Hey Josh that you?” The voice sounded like it belonged to high pitched woman’s. It was attractive, almost musical. “What took you so long?”
His face falling slightly, Josh took a slightly larger step inside, then turned around to face the wall that hid the kitchen from sight. “Yeah I’m sorry, they were out of ice cream.”
Do you see the problem with this? None of the descriptions taken alone are peculiarly strange or oddly used, but they are unnecessary. In fact most of this description is unnecessary. There’s no reason to describe so much. This narrative is too busy. Every time you write a piece of description the reader will assume it’s important, important for setting the scene/mood or for plot reasons or to show what the character’s are feeling.
This scene doesn’t know what it’s saying. The scene is about how Josh wasn’t able to get ice cream for Mary and he’s slightly worried about how she will react. In this scene the descriptions draw your attention to the qualities of Mary’s voice, the squeak of the door, Josh’s worn hands and the aged door knob. None of these descriptions add to the scene, in fact they distract from it. Furthermore by using too much description for this scene, the tone doesn't match the content. It feels like he's about to tell her he just got her daughter killed, not that store was out of ice cream.
The human senses get thousands of input signals a second, but are people aware of every one? No of course not. If Josh is really worried about Mary being angry he’s going to notice the butterflies in stomach, he might notice things that remind him of his guilt, when he walks in he might notice the bowls she put out, or that she looks slight annoyed already. Of course what exactly he notices or doesn’t is going to be indicative of his personality, but the point remains, he notices things related to his thoughts, the ongoing mental story in his head. You, as the writer, have to be the mental filter for the reader, passing on relevant information to them (of course there is something as a unreliable narrator, but I’ll get into that in a different post).
And that filter is where your power as a descriptive storyteller lies. You can choose to leave out things because the character doesn’t notice them. You can describe the tiles of the floor to show the character is bored, or describe things that seem creepy about a house or a person to make the audience suspicious. Or you can throw in the occasional line to reveal the appearance of a main character or describe her new friends house in order to reveal something about that character. And especially useful, any descriptions will add to the tone of the novel, whether it’s meant to be creepy or light and fluffy.
The power to control what the audiences “sees” is a useful and necessary tool to have. But remember, the power to control what they don’t “see” can be just or even more useful.
So lets try that scene again.
Josh hesitated at the door a moment before he opened it. The living room was empty, but he could hear Mary in the kitchen and the sound of opening cabinets.
“Hey Josh that you?.” The noise stopped, her voice was raised slightly with annoyance. “What took you so long?’
Shifting slight, Josh spoke, almost wincing, “Yeah, I’m sorry. They were out of ice cream.”
Every writer is going to have the description level they're comfortable and that's fine. Just as long as you're aware of what you're trying to tell the audience with your description and how it affects your story.
Note: Obviously you want to give description of places and people, but general shorten it to a few sentences tops that capture the essences of a place or person and maybe a few details. You can also spread the description throughout a scene in relevant ways. (Be aware that a character would need a reason to describe something they see all the time. You can engage the setting, like have them put up a new poster. Really, this a good idea for any setting, it makes it come alive.)
Josh wrapped his well worn hands around the brass doorknob blacken with age. Taking a deep trembling breath, he pushed open the door, the action causing a sharp momentary squeaking from the near hidden hinges. Drawing his eyebrows together he took a small step inside. Before he had made any really distance into the room a voice interrupted him coming from further inside the apartment.
“Hey Josh that you?” The voice sounded like it belonged to high pitched woman’s. It was attractive, almost musical. “What took you so long?”
His face falling slightly, Josh took a slightly larger step inside, then turned around to face the wall that hid the kitchen from sight. “Yeah I’m sorry, they were out of ice cream.”
Do you see the problem with this? None of the descriptions taken alone are peculiarly strange or oddly used, but they are unnecessary. In fact most of this description is unnecessary. There’s no reason to describe so much. This narrative is too busy. Every time you write a piece of description the reader will assume it’s important, important for setting the scene/mood or for plot reasons or to show what the character’s are feeling.
This scene doesn’t know what it’s saying. The scene is about how Josh wasn’t able to get ice cream for Mary and he’s slightly worried about how she will react. In this scene the descriptions draw your attention to the qualities of Mary’s voice, the squeak of the door, Josh’s worn hands and the aged door knob. None of these descriptions add to the scene, in fact they distract from it. Furthermore by using too much description for this scene, the tone doesn't match the content. It feels like he's about to tell her he just got her daughter killed, not that store was out of ice cream.
The human senses get thousands of input signals a second, but are people aware of every one? No of course not. If Josh is really worried about Mary being angry he’s going to notice the butterflies in stomach, he might notice things that remind him of his guilt, when he walks in he might notice the bowls she put out, or that she looks slight annoyed already. Of course what exactly he notices or doesn’t is going to be indicative of his personality, but the point remains, he notices things related to his thoughts, the ongoing mental story in his head. You, as the writer, have to be the mental filter for the reader, passing on relevant information to them (of course there is something as a unreliable narrator, but I’ll get into that in a different post).
And that filter is where your power as a descriptive storyteller lies. You can choose to leave out things because the character doesn’t notice them. You can describe the tiles of the floor to show the character is bored, or describe things that seem creepy about a house or a person to make the audience suspicious. Or you can throw in the occasional line to reveal the appearance of a main character or describe her new friends house in order to reveal something about that character. And especially useful, any descriptions will add to the tone of the novel, whether it’s meant to be creepy or light and fluffy.
The power to control what the audiences “sees” is a useful and necessary tool to have. But remember, the power to control what they don’t “see” can be just or even more useful.
So lets try that scene again.
Josh hesitated at the door a moment before he opened it. The living room was empty, but he could hear Mary in the kitchen and the sound of opening cabinets.
“Hey Josh that you?.” The noise stopped, her voice was raised slightly with annoyance. “What took you so long?’
Shifting slight, Josh spoke, almost wincing, “Yeah, I’m sorry. They were out of ice cream.”
Every writer is going to have the description level they're comfortable and that's fine. Just as long as you're aware of what you're trying to tell the audience with your description and how it affects your story.
Note: Obviously you want to give description of places and people, but general shorten it to a few sentences tops that capture the essences of a place or person and maybe a few details. You can also spread the description throughout a scene in relevant ways. (Be aware that a character would need a reason to describe something they see all the time. You can engage the setting, like have them put up a new poster. Really, this a good idea for any setting, it makes it come alive.)
Hot Topics: Purple Prose
Purple Prose – if you spent anytime writing you likely are familiar with the term. But what exactly does it mean? Well most its most basic level its unnecessary description, but at what point does your beautifully described waterfall suddenly start flowing vibrant silvery liquid while the rainbow sunset is streaking across the once azure sky? Like everything in writing the line can hard to see, but lets try and see if there can be anyway to define it more clearly.
To start out, if you are regularly pulling out a thesaurus – congratulations you are writing purple prose. And please – for everyone's sake please put that poor book down, you’re breaking its spine. Furthermore if you wish to make every sentence sound like it came out of poem – congratulations you’re writing purple prose. And need I add there is a reason poems are short. If in your attempt to find the perfect phrase you’ve developed a protruding vein or the sentence you just wrote won’t feel lonely on a shelf full of hallmark cards – Congratulations you’re writing purple prose.
All joking aside, though, that line can be difficult to see. What could be considered purple prose in one novel, can be acceptable in another, or in a different scene.
A beautiful description can bring alive the world for the reader. It can make them understand just why Josh’s heart skipped a beat when she saw Mary from across the room. It can illustrate just how creepy that house down at the end of the street really is. Description is a powerful tool in a writer’s arsenal. Purple prose happens when someone who doesn’t know how to wield it uses it.
Purple Prose-rs tend to both over use description (misunderstanding its purpose) and don’t understand how word choice affects the tone of the description (and therefore the story). They often think description is more important then it is, while undermining or not understanding why description is important in the first place. To illustrate this point I’m going to write two different scenes in the next two posts, one will over use description and one will have poor word choice and then write each in the non-purple prose way.
To start out, if you are regularly pulling out a thesaurus – congratulations you are writing purple prose. And please – for everyone's sake please put that poor book down, you’re breaking its spine. Furthermore if you wish to make every sentence sound like it came out of poem – congratulations you’re writing purple prose. And need I add there is a reason poems are short. If in your attempt to find the perfect phrase you’ve developed a protruding vein or the sentence you just wrote won’t feel lonely on a shelf full of hallmark cards – Congratulations you’re writing purple prose.
All joking aside, though, that line can be difficult to see. What could be considered purple prose in one novel, can be acceptable in another, or in a different scene.
A beautiful description can bring alive the world for the reader. It can make them understand just why Josh’s heart skipped a beat when she saw Mary from across the room. It can illustrate just how creepy that house down at the end of the street really is. Description is a powerful tool in a writer’s arsenal. Purple prose happens when someone who doesn’t know how to wield it uses it.
Purple Prose-rs tend to both over use description (misunderstanding its purpose) and don’t understand how word choice affects the tone of the description (and therefore the story). They often think description is more important then it is, while undermining or not understanding why description is important in the first place. To illustrate this point I’m going to write two different scenes in the next two posts, one will over use description and one will have poor word choice and then write each in the non-purple prose way.
New Post
New posts coming in my Hot Topic series! I have at least one more planned for that and then I'm going back to Basics!
I have a LOT more free time this semester, so hopefully I find more time to post up here. And it's great distraction from my current manuscript.*
*note: I am not encouraging distractions, the more your write the better you get. True Story.
I have a LOT more free time this semester, so hopefully I find more time to post up here. And it's great distraction from my current manuscript.*
*note: I am not encouraging distractions, the more your write the better you get. True Story.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Links
Here's a collection of websites that are useful for any writer, aspiring or otherwise.
Holly Lisle - Probably not a writer you've heard of, she has a LOT of book in print, but has mostly stayed a midlist author. Still you'll have trouble finding a website with more useful info for writers.
Vision for Writers - An online magazine for writers, it really gets into the nitty-gitty of writing.
Forward Motion - A writing community and a good place to find advice, critique and encouragement from writers in the same place as you.
Atsiko's Chimney - Geared towards more fantasy fiction writers, has some useful post covering more of the technical side of writing fantasy fiction.
Gail Carson Levine - You may know her as the author of Ella Enchanted, but she's has a great blog on writing as well. While she mostly focuses on questions, her answers are always insightful. She also generally has great writing prompts and covers a wide range in topics from basic writing to more advanced subjects.
Inky Girl's Blog for Writers - Besides the often hilarious writing related comics, this blog serves as a great resource for other writers. It points towards other blogs, interviews and advice for would-be published authors.
Writing Excuses - A great, hilarious and useful podcast by three writers (one is Brandon Sanderson the writer who took over the Wheel of Time series after Robert Jordan died). They also cover a range of topics and the podcasts never last longer then 15 minutes.
Odyssey Workshop - A hardcore workshop for would-be fantasy/sci-fi writers, it also sports an nice podcast that are recordings from the lectures of the workshop itself and online classes. The Podcast alone is worth checking out even if classroom writing isn't your thing. And checkout the Livejournal, links, and general advice to writers as well.
SFWA - A great website for everyone not just fantasy/sci-fi writers. And don't forget to check out the rest of the website too.
Nanowrimo - A yearly writing exercise when the writers try to write 50,000 word in the month of november. The forums are active anytime of year and are a great place to get advice and talk about writing. Also check out the sister program Scriptfrenzy which is in April.
In some of the other posts I'll have links that relate more directly with the topics, these are just general writing related topics.
Holly Lisle - Probably not a writer you've heard of, she has a LOT of book in print, but has mostly stayed a midlist author. Still you'll have trouble finding a website with more useful info for writers.
Vision for Writers - An online magazine for writers, it really gets into the nitty-gitty of writing.
Forward Motion - A writing community and a good place to find advice, critique and encouragement from writers in the same place as you.
Atsiko's Chimney - Geared towards more fantasy fiction writers, has some useful post covering more of the technical side of writing fantasy fiction.
Gail Carson Levine - You may know her as the author of Ella Enchanted, but she's has a great blog on writing as well. While she mostly focuses on questions, her answers are always insightful. She also generally has great writing prompts and covers a wide range in topics from basic writing to more advanced subjects.
Inky Girl's Blog for Writers - Besides the often hilarious writing related comics, this blog serves as a great resource for other writers. It points towards other blogs, interviews and advice for would-be published authors.
Writing Excuses - A great, hilarious and useful podcast by three writers (one is Brandon Sanderson the writer who took over the Wheel of Time series after Robert Jordan died). They also cover a range of topics and the podcasts never last longer then 15 minutes.
Odyssey Workshop - A hardcore workshop for would-be fantasy/sci-fi writers, it also sports an nice podcast that are recordings from the lectures of the workshop itself and online classes. The Podcast alone is worth checking out even if classroom writing isn't your thing. And checkout the Livejournal, links, and general advice to writers as well.
SFWA - A great website for everyone not just fantasy/sci-fi writers. And don't forget to check out the rest of the website too.
Nanowrimo - A yearly writing exercise when the writers try to write 50,000 word in the month of november. The forums are active anytime of year and are a great place to get advice and talk about writing. Also check out the sister program Scriptfrenzy which is in April.
In some of the other posts I'll have links that relate more directly with the topics, these are just general writing related topics.
About Me
So I figured since I was sending out my writing knowledge, thoughts and opinions into the world I should explain about myself as a writer.
I've been writing for almost ten years and have been involved seriously for the last seven of them, learning what I could, reading everything I could find and trying to practice as much as possible. I write mostly fantasy fiction, but within that heading I'm quite varied. However I know enough about writing that I feel my posts would be useful to someone who is a more general fiction based writer. I haven't finished a book on my own yet. With a co-author I have gotten into the editing phase and re-writing phase of a book. So obviously I'm not a published author and there is a lot I still have to learn. Despite this I hope that my fellow aspiring writers will find still find some useful advice and tips to help make their trip to finishing (and hopefully publishing) easier. Some of these things I post are an amalgamation of things I've read from different writers over the years and some of them are my own conclusions.
With this blog, I'm really trying to systemically and thoroughly cover the basic topics related to writing and story telling, while also addressing current and common concerns with writing.
I've been writing for almost ten years and have been involved seriously for the last seven of them, learning what I could, reading everything I could find and trying to practice as much as possible. I write mostly fantasy fiction, but within that heading I'm quite varied. However I know enough about writing that I feel my posts would be useful to someone who is a more general fiction based writer. I haven't finished a book on my own yet. With a co-author I have gotten into the editing phase and re-writing phase of a book. So obviously I'm not a published author and there is a lot I still have to learn. Despite this I hope that my fellow aspiring writers will find still find some useful advice and tips to help make their trip to finishing (and hopefully publishing) easier. Some of these things I post are an amalgamation of things I've read from different writers over the years and some of them are my own conclusions.
With this blog, I'm really trying to systemically and thoroughly cover the basic topics related to writing and story telling, while also addressing current and common concerns with writing.
Hot Topics: Mary Sues (Conclusion)
Like the Mix Type Sue showed, these personalities and types I've been mentioning are just decorating and disguising the deeper problem. All of these “types” of characters can be written well with a skilled writer and storyteller at the helm. But as I wrote earlier all Mary Sues are at their cores the same. They live by their own rules and are exaggerations of realistic people. The worse thing about it is that Mary Suedom can make your character hard to relate to.
No one is perfect, perfectly feminine or perfectly badass. No one is horrible at everything at life and has no good qualities, and no one goes through life without getting properly in trouble for bad behavior or getting rewarded for their good acts.
Is Mary Suedom something you should be concerned about for your character(s)? Yes. Writing stories that readers can connect to is the whole point of wanting to share your work. But is your character a Mary Sue? Well just ask yourself these questions:
1. Are the rules of logic, reason and good sense consistently broken for this character? Are the only people who dislike her villains? Do the people in her life react to her behavior and choices in unrealistic and in out of character ways? Do her actions only result in good outcomes and never bad? If you answered yes to these questions you have a story bender on your hands and should fix that right away if it's a reoccurring theme. Now, a little bit of story bending occasionally won’t necessarily kill your character or your story, but only if your character is generally realistic and reasonably flawed otherwise.
2. Does she have good and bad qualities? Aka is she a realistic character? You have more fudge room here (especially on the good side if she's the hero), but make sure she has some flaws and some positives.
Of course, if the rules are only bent or broken for these characters one or two times, then it can be okay. But if it's an important moment in the plot, then you will like be accused of using deus ex machina, (which they’ll be another blog about), not necessarily of writing a Mary Sue. And that's not a good thing.
So how do you avoid Mary Sues? Basically give these characters weaknesses (or strengths accordingly), give them faults, give them hardships. And make sure they act based on those strength and weaknesses constantly throughout the story and in realistic ways. Also make sure that the other characters react to them in realistic ways based on their own personality faults and strengths (which especially means making sure characters that dislike the main character aren't always villains or unsympathetic). You shouldn’t just focus on how “awesome” your character is. Make your character feel human, real, relatable.
Of course there is variability in Sue-ness. There tends to be a level of Sue-ness each person can stand. In a more epic story it’s likely that the some readers won’t mind a character with Mary Sue tendencies (in both departments) and will enjoy how “awesome” your character is (Ferris is basically sue - still love that movie). Other readers, however, will want to throw your book across the room. In either case, your best bet is to make the character feel as real as possible, even if amazing things are happening around them or to them.
One last note, there’s often a lot of talk about Mary Sues appearance, their names and their stuff. Some sites say if your main character has wings or blue hair or goes by a Japanese name, they’re probably a Mary Sue. What’s important here isn’t the surface things themselves, but likely the self-indulgence (aka story bending) that concerns these writers. Ultimately they’re worried that your self-indulgence bleeds into the rest of the story. However if you can find a realistic reason for these physical things (the main character is part of a race of winged people, she dyed her hair blue, she decided to rename herself because she loves Japanese culture) then you’re probably safe, even if you might incite eye rolling from the reader.
No one is perfect, perfectly feminine or perfectly badass. No one is horrible at everything at life and has no good qualities, and no one goes through life without getting properly in trouble for bad behavior or getting rewarded for their good acts.
Is Mary Suedom something you should be concerned about for your character(s)? Yes. Writing stories that readers can connect to is the whole point of wanting to share your work. But is your character a Mary Sue? Well just ask yourself these questions:
1. Are the rules of logic, reason and good sense consistently broken for this character? Are the only people who dislike her villains? Do the people in her life react to her behavior and choices in unrealistic and in out of character ways? Do her actions only result in good outcomes and never bad? If you answered yes to these questions you have a story bender on your hands and should fix that right away if it's a reoccurring theme. Now, a little bit of story bending occasionally won’t necessarily kill your character or your story, but only if your character is generally realistic and reasonably flawed otherwise.
2. Does she have good and bad qualities? Aka is she a realistic character? You have more fudge room here (especially on the good side if she's the hero), but make sure she has some flaws and some positives.
Of course, if the rules are only bent or broken for these characters one or two times, then it can be okay. But if it's an important moment in the plot, then you will like be accused of using deus ex machina, (which they’ll be another blog about), not necessarily of writing a Mary Sue. And that's not a good thing.
So how do you avoid Mary Sues? Basically give these characters weaknesses (or strengths accordingly), give them faults, give them hardships. And make sure they act based on those strength and weaknesses constantly throughout the story and in realistic ways. Also make sure that the other characters react to them in realistic ways based on their own personality faults and strengths (which especially means making sure characters that dislike the main character aren't always villains or unsympathetic). You shouldn’t just focus on how “awesome” your character is. Make your character feel human, real, relatable.
Of course there is variability in Sue-ness. There tends to be a level of Sue-ness each person can stand. In a more epic story it’s likely that the some readers won’t mind a character with Mary Sue tendencies (in both departments) and will enjoy how “awesome” your character is (Ferris is basically sue - still love that movie). Other readers, however, will want to throw your book across the room. In either case, your best bet is to make the character feel as real as possible, even if amazing things are happening around them or to them.
One last note, there’s often a lot of talk about Mary Sues appearance, their names and their stuff. Some sites say if your main character has wings or blue hair or goes by a Japanese name, they’re probably a Mary Sue. What’s important here isn’t the surface things themselves, but likely the self-indulgence (aka story bending) that concerns these writers. Ultimately they’re worried that your self-indulgence bleeds into the rest of the story. However if you can find a realistic reason for these physical things (the main character is part of a race of winged people, she dyed her hair blue, she decided to rename herself because she loves Japanese culture) then you’re probably safe, even if you might incite eye rolling from the reader.
Hot Topics: Mary Sues (Misc)
And lastly, just a few more types or issues that don’t really belong under the classic Mary Sue banner, but should be addressed - the Self Insert character, the Villain Sue, the Mixed Type Sue and the Reverse Type Sue.
First there’s the Self Insert character. Self Insert characters that are meant to represent the author in the world and are often the main character. Now Self Insert character in and of themselves aren’t Mary Sues. However the problem is that very few authors who write Self Insert characters really write themselves; they often become Sues quickly, especially a Perfection Sue. Authors write prettier, faster, smarter, better versions of themselves and lose all the qualities that make then human.
The Villain Sue is basically a Jerk Sue who doesn't use his story bending power to get people to tolerant his awful personality, but to become unbeatable (and likely be way more wicked cool then the hero). Now people can forgive a little bit of Villain Sueness, we all love good villain, but the best thing about a good villain is watching them get defeated, otherwise the whole experience is just frustrating.
Then there's is the Mixed Type Sue. A character who is a little bit of everything as need, or author, requires. She doesn’t fit nicely into a model. Or she maybe she just flirts with another type, like an Action Sue that can and does act like a Jerk Sue at times. Now she might be more layered and realistic in theory, but all that is undone because she still rocks the story bending hard core. And more often then not, she just doesn't come across as having any distinct personality.
And lastly there's the... I'm going to call them, the Reverse Type Sue. She is that weird creature I mention in the introduction for this series. The Sue that actually kind of works because, she's even though she's not exactly a balance character, she doesn't bend her story. Let's take Giselle from Enchanted as an example. Within her universe she was a Classic Type Sue. This changed when she entered the real world. Now, her personality didn't change, but in the real world she is no longer bending the story to her benefit. In the real world she gets a wide range of realistic reactions to her behavior. This makes her work for two reasons:
1. It negates her story bending power and...
2. It strangely brings out some of her flaws. In the real world we see she is overly naive, a bit dizzy and has no control over her emotions.
Of course she's still kind of Sueish and really has no real deep flaws explored, but that's okay. Many famous characters have Sue qualities but work because of this same effect. A great example is Anne of Green Gables. She's a little hot tempered and stubborn, but she's also a little too good at a lot of things and wins almost everyone over. But she isn't universal loved and she does have to work hard and no one who dislikes her is evil.
This just show's you how much a Sue is truly made by how the character effect on their worlds, not just how they act. A character can have almost any personality just as long as other people's reaction to them is realistic.
First there’s the Self Insert character. Self Insert characters that are meant to represent the author in the world and are often the main character. Now Self Insert character in and of themselves aren’t Mary Sues. However the problem is that very few authors who write Self Insert characters really write themselves; they often become Sues quickly, especially a Perfection Sue. Authors write prettier, faster, smarter, better versions of themselves and lose all the qualities that make then human.
The Villain Sue is basically a Jerk Sue who doesn't use his story bending power to get people to tolerant his awful personality, but to become unbeatable (and likely be way more wicked cool then the hero). Now people can forgive a little bit of Villain Sueness, we all love good villain, but the best thing about a good villain is watching them get defeated, otherwise the whole experience is just frustrating.
Then there's is the Mixed Type Sue. A character who is a little bit of everything as need, or author, requires. She doesn’t fit nicely into a model. Or she maybe she just flirts with another type, like an Action Sue that can and does act like a Jerk Sue at times. Now she might be more layered and realistic in theory, but all that is undone because she still rocks the story bending hard core. And more often then not, she just doesn't come across as having any distinct personality.
And lastly there's the... I'm going to call them, the Reverse Type Sue. She is that weird creature I mention in the introduction for this series. The Sue that actually kind of works because, she's even though she's not exactly a balance character, she doesn't bend her story. Let's take Giselle from Enchanted as an example. Within her universe she was a Classic Type Sue. This changed when she entered the real world. Now, her personality didn't change, but in the real world she is no longer bending the story to her benefit. In the real world she gets a wide range of realistic reactions to her behavior. This makes her work for two reasons:
1. It negates her story bending power and...
2. It strangely brings out some of her flaws. In the real world we see she is overly naive, a bit dizzy and has no control over her emotions.
Of course she's still kind of Sueish and really has no real deep flaws explored, but that's okay. Many famous characters have Sue qualities but work because of this same effect. A great example is Anne of Green Gables. She's a little hot tempered and stubborn, but she's also a little too good at a lot of things and wins almost everyone over. But she isn't universal loved and she does have to work hard and no one who dislikes her is evil.
This just show's you how much a Sue is truly made by how the character effect on their worlds, not just how they act. A character can have almost any personality just as long as other people's reaction to them is realistic.
Hot Topics: Mary Sues (Anti-Sue)
On the other side of the Perfection Sue is the Anti-Sue and it's two subtypes Pathetic Sue and Jerk Sue.
Perfection Sues are easy to see, they’re the characters that don’t have to work at anything, however Anti-sues are harder to spot because on the surface they look like more three dimensional characters. Often they are less universally good, however they are just unbalance just swung in the opposite direction. Now, as the name implies, many of these Mary Sues developed as reaction to the sudden rise in awareness of Mary Suedom, however the writers of Anti-Sues still missed the boat.
First there is the Pathetic Sue. Don’t worry she’s pathetic at everything but being a Mary Sue.
Exhibit A: Mary Sue never did well at school and she isn’t pretty. No one ever notices Mary Sue. She can’t walk without tripping over her own feet and she really awkward with people. However despite being rather unremarkable and failing at life in general (if the character is exaggerated enough, her fails are so epic that would likely be her only claim to fame), she manages to still have all the boys in school ask her to the dance. She probably has to choose between two (hot) men who are in total and complete love with her. She may or may not come with a ton of friends.
Pathetic Sue is tricky. If she was written correctly she could easy come across as a three-dimensional character, but that's just the problem, most of the time she isn’t. The readers are told she’s plain, awkward and unremarkable, and she may or may not read that way on the page (ie she a boring character to read), but the main problem is that no one in the story treats her that way. She might not even act like how she’s described, or if she does it’s to ridiculous levels. Either way all the other characters still think she’s the best thing since sliced bread, except of course, the villains (This is what would normally be called an Anti-Sue.) Therefore she is still an unbalance character, who bends the story.
Exhibit B: Jerk Sue is mean. She walks all over everyone, breaks hearts without a second thought, and is generally a jerk. But for some reason no one ever says anything about it. In fact it’s like she’s not doing anything bad at all. She somehow always manages to keep friends and lives to fight on and torment more people without lasting, if any, consequences.
Jerk Sue is an interesting case. Likely one of two things are happening with a Jerk Sue, either a) the author is not thinking through what a realistic reaction to a character’s behavior would be or b) the author is trying to make an edgy character, and failed to understand what makes a dark character dynamic (namely good AND bad qualities). And sadly these Sues are further frustrating. Often if they do get taught a lesson it never sticks. They're like the sitcom character whose moral slate gets wiped clean every week, forgetting the lessons they learned episodes before. Perhaps even more interestingly characters meant to be seen as heroic can fall into Jerk Sue territory because the author is allowing they get away with morally questionably acts under the guise of heroic actions.
Do you see the problem with these Sues? They use more story bending powers then their perfect cousins, because they’re not likable. The side characters' reactions to them make even less sense then reactions to Perfection Sues, as least perfection sues are good people. As such no one reacts realistically to them! Just like Perfection Sues need flaws, Anti-Sues desperately need good qualities to balance their characters. Moreover people need to react realistically to their behavior.
Perfection Sues are easy to see, they’re the characters that don’t have to work at anything, however Anti-sues are harder to spot because on the surface they look like more three dimensional characters. Often they are less universally good, however they are just unbalance just swung in the opposite direction. Now, as the name implies, many of these Mary Sues developed as reaction to the sudden rise in awareness of Mary Suedom, however the writers of Anti-Sues still missed the boat.
First there is the Pathetic Sue. Don’t worry she’s pathetic at everything but being a Mary Sue.
Exhibit A: Mary Sue never did well at school and she isn’t pretty. No one ever notices Mary Sue. She can’t walk without tripping over her own feet and she really awkward with people. However despite being rather unremarkable and failing at life in general (if the character is exaggerated enough, her fails are so epic that would likely be her only claim to fame), she manages to still have all the boys in school ask her to the dance. She probably has to choose between two (hot) men who are in total and complete love with her. She may or may not come with a ton of friends.
Pathetic Sue is tricky. If she was written correctly she could easy come across as a three-dimensional character, but that's just the problem, most of the time she isn’t. The readers are told she’s plain, awkward and unremarkable, and she may or may not read that way on the page (ie she a boring character to read), but the main problem is that no one in the story treats her that way. She might not even act like how she’s described, or if she does it’s to ridiculous levels. Either way all the other characters still think she’s the best thing since sliced bread, except of course, the villains (This is what would normally be called an Anti-Sue.) Therefore she is still an unbalance character, who bends the story.
Exhibit B: Jerk Sue is mean. She walks all over everyone, breaks hearts without a second thought, and is generally a jerk. But for some reason no one ever says anything about it. In fact it’s like she’s not doing anything bad at all. She somehow always manages to keep friends and lives to fight on and torment more people without lasting, if any, consequences.
Jerk Sue is an interesting case. Likely one of two things are happening with a Jerk Sue, either a) the author is not thinking through what a realistic reaction to a character’s behavior would be or b) the author is trying to make an edgy character, and failed to understand what makes a dark character dynamic (namely good AND bad qualities). And sadly these Sues are further frustrating. Often if they do get taught a lesson it never sticks. They're like the sitcom character whose moral slate gets wiped clean every week, forgetting the lessons they learned episodes before. Perhaps even more interestingly characters meant to be seen as heroic can fall into Jerk Sue territory because the author is allowing they get away with morally questionably acts under the guise of heroic actions.
Do you see the problem with these Sues? They use more story bending powers then their perfect cousins, because they’re not likable. The side characters' reactions to them make even less sense then reactions to Perfection Sues, as least perfection sues are good people. As such no one reacts realistically to them! Just like Perfection Sues need flaws, Anti-Sues desperately need good qualities to balance their characters. Moreover people need to react realistically to their behavior.
Hot Topics: Mary Sues (Perfection Sue)
This first type I’m going to look at is the Perfection Sue. She is most easily identified in stories and is a good place to start. There are two subtypes the Classic Mary Sue and the Action Sue. Let's look at the Classic Mary Sue first.
Exhibit A: Mary Sue was the most gorgeous girl in the whole state of New York and everyone knew it. When she smiled all the guys had to resist the urge to leave their girlfriends on the spot. Men regularly confessed their love for her. Despite that no woman could find it within them hate her. She was the most kind and generous girl, and everyone wished she was their friend. When she sang people came from miles around, even the pope had been known to show up…
I think you get the idea. Not only does this amazing girl get whatever she wants because everyone loves her. Everyone loves her goodness and compassion. Anyone who doesn’t is a villain. She might also save the day at the end of the story – with the power of love – because she is the only one who can.
Exhibit B: Mary Sue is top of her class. In fact she’s been at the top of her class in everything. She’s the best fighter in all of her martial arts class. She graduated top of her class at west point at 16. She doesn’t ever need anyone's help. She works for the government now and whenever there’s a problem and the president doesn’t know what to do, he calls her. She can take down any man single handedly…
Kill me now. This is called the Action Sue, she may or may not come with a sense of entitlement (and is often more flawed then Classic Sue), but she’ll likely come with a attitude (if the character is a male they will be humble though). Now normally you’d expect anyone who rose in the ranks so fast to be resented by just about everyone, but not her. No, everyone respects action sue. They respect her strength and confidence. Anyone who doesn’t is – guess what? – a villain! This type of Sue has long been common with in her male counter part Gary Sue, but is a newer Sue for female characters. Her rise is probably a reaction to rising woman’s rights in the last 40 years or so.
Do you see the problem? Who wants to read about them? Both of these subtypes bend the story and are unbalanced characters in equal parts. Which just makes them boring! They never really get into trouble (because they bend the plot) and you know that they’ll fix everything in the end (because they're perfect). The bad guys never stood a chance against these girls. Really there’s no real point in even finishing the story. Moreover who wants to read three paragraphs (or pages) describing how awesome the character is?
Exhibit A: Mary Sue was the most gorgeous girl in the whole state of New York and everyone knew it. When she smiled all the guys had to resist the urge to leave their girlfriends on the spot. Men regularly confessed their love for her. Despite that no woman could find it within them hate her. She was the most kind and generous girl, and everyone wished she was their friend. When she sang people came from miles around, even the pope had been known to show up…
I think you get the idea. Not only does this amazing girl get whatever she wants because everyone loves her. Everyone loves her goodness and compassion. Anyone who doesn’t is a villain. She might also save the day at the end of the story – with the power of love – because she is the only one who can.
Exhibit B: Mary Sue is top of her class. In fact she’s been at the top of her class in everything. She’s the best fighter in all of her martial arts class. She graduated top of her class at west point at 16. She doesn’t ever need anyone's help. She works for the government now and whenever there’s a problem and the president doesn’t know what to do, he calls her. She can take down any man single handedly…
Kill me now. This is called the Action Sue, she may or may not come with a sense of entitlement (and is often more flawed then Classic Sue), but she’ll likely come with a attitude (if the character is a male they will be humble though). Now normally you’d expect anyone who rose in the ranks so fast to be resented by just about everyone, but not her. No, everyone respects action sue. They respect her strength and confidence. Anyone who doesn’t is – guess what? – a villain! This type of Sue has long been common with in her male counter part Gary Sue, but is a newer Sue for female characters. Her rise is probably a reaction to rising woman’s rights in the last 40 years or so.
Do you see the problem? Who wants to read about them? Both of these subtypes bend the story and are unbalanced characters in equal parts. Which just makes them boring! They never really get into trouble (because they bend the plot) and you know that they’ll fix everything in the end (because they're perfect). The bad guys never stood a chance against these girls. Really there’s no real point in even finishing the story. Moreover who wants to read three paragraphs (or pages) describing how awesome the character is?
Hot Topics: Mary Sues
Mary Sue.
You’ve probably met her before, or it you haven’t, you’ve read her name written between curses of annoyance on forums, or seen some unfortunate author accused of writing one. Maybe you know what it means, or maybe you don’t. But in the wide world of the internet there are definitions for it everywhere. There are good and bad explanations which is the source of some uncertainty. So I thought I would take a stab at clearing up the confusion as to what exactly a Mary Sue is, and what it means for your story.
So what is a Mary Sue?
At her essence Mary Sue is two things: an unbalanced character and a character who bends the story to her benefit. (You can have a Mary Sue that unbalanced, but doesn't bend the story. This character's placement as Mary Sues can be argued, this is most because they can actually work within the story).
As an unbalanced character she doesn’t read as real and lacks the complexity of a real person. She is often one dimensional and almost always exaggerated in some way or other.
As character that bends the story, her presences changes the logical progression of events. If you think of your story as a solar system, Mary Sue is the black hole that abruptly springs up. Everything in your world seems to bend and orbit around the gravity of her. Nothing can escape her influence. Everyone loves or hates her passionately, but no one is apathetic to her. Rules get bent for her, the logic of the story is forgotten for Mary Sue. She becomes the axis of the story. This effect can be seen easily in fanfiction, but is also a phenomenon found in origin fiction as well.
But why do these obviously poorly written characters exist?
They exist because the authors don't want they characters to feel pain, they don't want them to suffer. They make a character that can never make mistake and make sure they never give the character real conflict, creating a loop hole for escape. The author normally just loves their character too much and wants everyone to like them, the reader and the other characters in the story included. This shows in two ways, either the character is perfect and/or the world responds to them like they are perfect.
But to really understand Mary Sue and what it looks like, I'm going to have to take a closer look. To better explain these themes I’ll be going over her two main types and subtypes within those groups. The types are separate by how each aspect of Mary Suedom plays out in their character and story. Within these post I’ll be going over the two themes of Mary Sue, so keep an eye out for these elements.
Note: anyone familiar with the types of Sues will notice that I’m not going by internet groups, but pulling together main themes most often found in Sues.
You’ve probably met her before, or it you haven’t, you’ve read her name written between curses of annoyance on forums, or seen some unfortunate author accused of writing one. Maybe you know what it means, or maybe you don’t. But in the wide world of the internet there are definitions for it everywhere. There are good and bad explanations which is the source of some uncertainty. So I thought I would take a stab at clearing up the confusion as to what exactly a Mary Sue is, and what it means for your story.
So what is a Mary Sue?
At her essence Mary Sue is two things: an unbalanced character and a character who bends the story to her benefit. (You can have a Mary Sue that unbalanced, but doesn't bend the story. This character's placement as Mary Sues can be argued, this is most because they can actually work within the story).
As an unbalanced character she doesn’t read as real and lacks the complexity of a real person. She is often one dimensional and almost always exaggerated in some way or other.
As character that bends the story, her presences changes the logical progression of events. If you think of your story as a solar system, Mary Sue is the black hole that abruptly springs up. Everything in your world seems to bend and orbit around the gravity of her. Nothing can escape her influence. Everyone loves or hates her passionately, but no one is apathetic to her. Rules get bent for her, the logic of the story is forgotten for Mary Sue. She becomes the axis of the story. This effect can be seen easily in fanfiction, but is also a phenomenon found in origin fiction as well.
But why do these obviously poorly written characters exist?
They exist because the authors don't want they characters to feel pain, they don't want them to suffer. They make a character that can never make mistake and make sure they never give the character real conflict, creating a loop hole for escape. The author normally just loves their character too much and wants everyone to like them, the reader and the other characters in the story included. This shows in two ways, either the character is perfect and/or the world responds to them like they are perfect.
But to really understand Mary Sue and what it looks like, I'm going to have to take a closer look. To better explain these themes I’ll be going over her two main types and subtypes within those groups. The types are separate by how each aspect of Mary Suedom plays out in their character and story. Within these post I’ll be going over the two themes of Mary Sue, so keep an eye out for these elements.
Note: anyone familiar with the types of Sues will notice that I’m not going by internet groups, but pulling together main themes most often found in Sues.
Friday, February 26, 2010
A new set of blogs coming soon...
Sorry again for the delay. My next planned blog turned out to be more involved then I thought and will come out in blocks. I just haven't had the time needed to really get down into the thick of the subject. But I think it's an interesting and a fun topic, so will see how you guys enjoy it. These new blogs should be posted within the next few days.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)