Here's an idea that came up recently for me. I had never thought of it before. The main character in my short story ended up pretty superficial and undeveloped after my first draft. This bothered me greatly. I had somebody crit the story, and they said something interesting (or maybe I read something interesting into what they said. I forget which one it was.)
They said that the character had seemed well-developed and fleshed-out when they read it, and they connected with the character. Upon looking back, they realized the character really didn't have much of its own personality, and they realized they had been giving him their own personality.
Do you think there's any value to the idea of creating a shallow character, a "blank man" if you will, so that the reader will read themselves into the story instead of the personality I might create for the character? Kind of a "put yourself into this situation" thing?
Posted by MaryRobinette (Member # 1680) on :
I don't think so, though one of the reasons the Great Gatsby works is because the narrator is a nothing character observing interesting ones. OSC said that he left out all the descriptive details of - forgot her name, female lead in Saints - on purpose, so that people would put themselves into her shoes. The character is really well developed, but he doesn't bother with the physical.
I think that a character needs to be developed in order for us to form an empathy with her.
Posted by Jules (Member # 1658) on :
You can do interesting things by making the viewpoint character lacking in personality and observing interesting people.
This is also, perhaps, one of the few cases where the 2nd person POV might work.
You pace quickly onto the bridge, the report in your hand. Captain Bull snatches it from you and scans through the list of damaged equipment.
"We're down to one power cell," he says.
"That should last us until we reach Gamma 31," the first officer replies.
The captain nods. "Pass the order around that we should only use essential equipment. No lighting other than the emergency lights. And no holo games either."
Posted by Christine (Member # 1646) on :
The trouble with what you are suggesting, wetwilly, is that I don't think you had a blank character. It sounds like you're suggesting what Jules said, a passive observer. Only a passive observer can be blank.
What I thought you had done was write a minimal characterization, enough to drive the plot and give us a taste of personality....a teaser, almost. (BTW, this is one problem with answering author questions, they often don't know what to ask. ) When you aked me if you had created a flat character it caused me to go back and think what I knew about the guy....which is very little. He has a certain moral code that I see through action, he got drunk one night as a response to being upset, and he didn't like the easy woman throwing herself in his face until he got drunk enough. That's not all that much, but on the other hand, it's not blank. It drives the plot.
What you left out was motivations for why he felt the way he did about everything; how he got his moral code. You also left out what kind of person he had been like pre-story. These things gave me the opportunity to pretend that if I had been in that story, I would have behaved as he had.
So, you see how you saked the wrong question? You asked me if your main character was flat and it got me looking into your minimalist characterization and trying to describe how he had felt quite real enough for the story....keep in mind that not all stories *require* excessive characterization.
[This message has been edited by Christine (edited June 23, 2004).]
Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :
Ho ho ho! From what Christine says, it sounds like you were accidentally showing rather than telling.
Posted by Kolona (Member # 1438) on :
Hmmm...'saked' again, huh, Christine? Typo, or something more Freudian...? <wiggles eyebrows> Posted by Christine (Member # 1646) on :
sak instead of ask is my most common typo and I have no idea why. It's been recent, too. I think my a key is a little sticky and i type so fast that the s comes up first. Maybe I should get a new keyboard.
Posted by AeroB1033 (Member # 1956) on :
If the story needs well-developed characters, then you should develop them--but many stories do not. In many event stories, for example, the characters is what he does, and nothing more. And despite the common doctrine of modern literature (that you have to have fleshed out characters), that's okay, assuming your story and its plot are interesting enough to carry the reader through.
) When you aked me if you had created a flat character it caused me to go back and think what I knew about the guy....which is very little. He has a certain moral code that I see through action, he got drunk one night as a response to being upset, and he didn't like the easy woman throwing herself in his face until he got drunk enough. That's not all that much, but on the other hand, it's not blank. It drives the plot.