TnT: Varied Characterization

[pipisafoat]

Congratulations again to pippin for winning the 4th contest!

Your topic for the first Challenge Contest, Tear Down The Wall, will be open until 5 pm GMT Saturday - stretch yourself into something new in 500 words or less!

Don't forget about your assignments, editors, which can be found at this link along with a question for the community as a whole.

---

One of the greatest challenges for an author is to write believable characters who are from a variety of backgrounds and not just a cookie cutter of themselves, or of the self you wish you were. Depending on the story, this can mean characters of a different time period, geographic location, culture, socioeconomic background, race, gender, or even height and weight - you wouldn't believe the number of people who fail to take into account that a 4'9" character simply can't reach the spices over the stove without a stool or someone else's help.

Think about all the character-fails you've seen. Don't share them except in the most general of terms, and don't link them to any specific author, but rather think about what knowledge you have that the author didn't that made you recognize them as fails. Share that knowledge here to help other authors do it right next time! If there's a type of character you've not seen enough of in other people's works in general, let us know about their characteristics and how to present them believably and without offense.

As always, please remember to keep a respectful tone here, to authors who have been misinformed as well as other community members sharing their insights with you.

Comments

[thblackflame]

That's an interesting though. I'll admit I'm one of those people who have the preconcieved notion that the main character will at some point end up in a relationship with a love interest, but I read and write smut. I do think it would be interesting to read something with an asexual character. What do you mean by show-don't-tell notions? It's not a phrase that I have heard before, so I'm curious. ^_^

[ex_pippin880]

Well. Usually, it is better writing (and reading) to show instead of tell. It generally comes in two varieties. The basic 'show things instead of telling', and the slightly more complex 'what you actually show contradicts what you've told us'.

Telling ::
"It's okay," Islington lied. He was very angry.

Showing ::
"It's. Okay," said Islington, though he refused to meet her gaze.


Telling & showing contradiction ::
You've probably seen this around. It's when the narration says how smart or brave or persuasive a character is, and yet they never actually act/do anything smart or brave or persuasive.

So, like, if the narration talks about how smart and charming Islington is, but he never ever notices things (murder clues, social cues, whatever) on his own and also has to have them pointed out by Westminster, and if he never actually charms anyone during conversation, that's a failure of telling things you can't support with showing.


Of course, sometimes it's better to tell than show, but when you've had ten years of people going "no no, show don't tell, of course, that's what everyone agrees makes better writing, always" it can be difficult to accept that and play around with some telling.


In the specific example of having an aromantic character, you can show that they're aromantic until the cows come home, but because (a) not all people know about/accept asexuality, and (b) some readers will passively/actively ignore things like that for their own reasons (e.g. like you), that showing is probably only going to be noticed by aces. But having to elegantly slot in a "no I'm not interested in anyone - no I'm neither straight nor gay - no, really, I'm not waiting for the right person to come along, it's not a side-effect of anti-depressants etc. etc. etc." conversation, especially in a secondary world setting, is difficult. I mean, you don't get (good) stories going "Islington does not have a girlfriend, because he is homosexual".

[thblackflame]

Thank you for explaining it. ^_^ I appreciate it. Generally subtlety is lost on me, so I'm one of those people who have to be told. ^^;;;;

[msmcknittington]

That's all very interesting. Really!

I almost feel that with characters who break with what's widely regarded as an essential part of the human experience (which I don't necessarily agree with!), you almost have to have a sort of "come to Jesus" moment where that "aberration" is discussed. But that's so problematic, because people who are exceptional in some way aren't defined solely by the exception, and every story about an asexual or aromantic person shouldn't have to center around that fact. It's a really troubling side effect of having the default narrative be one that's able-bodied, homosexual, male, and white. If you deviate from that, then you almost have to discuss it, because otherwise people get confused.

[ex_pippin880]

Yeah. :/ A friend of mine's writing a novel with no white people in it, and she's found she's had to refer to people's skin tones a lot more than she normally would (the default skin tone in that setting is dark -- why would the narrators focus on that?) to get people to recognise/remember that no one's white.

[msmcknittington]

Agh, referring to people's skintone is such an awkward thing to do, too. Like, how do you do that subtly? It's so awkward that I would be tempted to put a big author's note in the beginning that was like, "ALL THESE PEOPLE ARE BROWN. DON'T FORGET IT." But I think most people would regard that as bad writing.