I'm not convinced the reader can care about a character until they know the character from the inside. I believe knowing needs and flaws is an essential part of that.
Well, my issue with that item: is the word "explicit". Implicit, maybe. Some signaling of those things, some background, sure. But to me "explicit" means that you clearly and directly tell the reader, and that is, IMO, very often a bad idea.
I'm in the middle of doing that, actually. Techniques of the Selling Writer is one of my favorite books on writing. He writes about more than just the character in the First Act. He mentions the Dramatic Question, the Hook, the Setting, the Theme, the Tone, A Reason to Care about the Character, Establishing Viewpoint, and the Stakes.
When I used "explicit", I didn't mean "directly tell the reader". A secondary character can tell it clearly and directly to another character without putting it in big, flashing font. A reader skilled in critical reading might pick up on it, but the average reader will probably have a seed covertly planted in their subconscious which will grow as the pages are turned. The seed helps to orient the reader for maximal effect.
Got it. To me, "explicit" does mean to directly, specifically, unambiguously tell the reader. So I'd rephrase this one as "Needs and flaws of the protagonist established."
That's an odd analysis of what makes a reader attached to a character. Did you look at any of the links in the Google search I linked to?
To be sure, I mean more than just a vague shrug in the general direction of those needs and wants. The secondary character needs to state them clearly and unambiguously. The writer doesn't need to lampshade that comment with a bright pink leg lamp or a trollop with an arrow sign.
I don't generally use Google to do research. Google's PageRank algorithm will prioritize common knowledge (what most people think is true) over expertise (what actually is true). So, I buy books written by experts.
And I don't think that clear, unambiguous statements like that are necessarily a good thing. They tend to simplify complex issues. I don't know where you get the imagery that you're using; that's not what I'm suggesting at all.
It depends on the search string you use and your ability to evaluate links for their inherent value and bias. You're here in the forum asking writer's opinions but you don't want to look at writer's opinions which are not on the forum? Google is a useful tool, you're limiting yourself unnecessarily by not even looking at it.
Fortunately, that secondary character's simple comment will be followed by the second and third acts which give plenty of opportunity to add complexity and nuance. It has been my experience not just in writing but in all communication that starting with complexity just causes the message to be lost in confusion.
Just a few posts ago, I mentioned that I'm in the middle of reading Techniques of the Selling Writer.
If memory serves, there is a great example in Justice League: Gods and Monsters and, also, Justice League: the Flashpoint Paradox. I'll try to get some time to rewatch them so that I can tell you more.
And that has to do with ignoring everything on a Google search, why? Are you suggesting other people do the footwork as you won't? Sorry, but I'm out of here.
You accused me of not wanting My response to that is that I do look at writers' opinions not on the forum. If you had accused me of not wanting to waste my time reading hits from PageRank on common opinion of mostly non-experts, my response would have been "yes, that accusation seems accurate".
@Justin Rocket based on a few posts here, you seem to have a very constrained, tightly-regimented view of how to approach a novel. I'm not sure that's a good thing. If you find it has some use to you, then OK, but I think that kind of approach is much less likely to produce a great story than a more organic approach to the process. Maybe you're putting too much time into trying make a science of fiction and trying to find a formula to conform to.
Y'know, there's nothing actually wrong with being courteous to people who try to offer information that they feel is helpful. You may not feel that it's helpful. But being polite to them all the same isn't going to hurt anything or anyone. I've never seen Miss Manners say, "If you can't say something nice, speak up quick."
My polite response was replied to with the accusation I can only imagine what the response would have been if I'd said simply
That seems to me to be going down the route of telling rather showing. While secondary characters can talk about the protagonist, I think that's often designed to show the secondary character's opinion, rather than be an on the nose bit of character profiling. There are arguments for introducing certain flaws early. If you want to show some character growth, introducing a flaw early can give more room to manoeuvre. Or sometimes you might want something to balance the character and make them feel human, rather than Mary-Sue. But both of these would seem better achieved by showing it rather than a secondary character stating it. Not all flaws need to be exposed early. Often no one knows how the character will react under the pressure of the problems they encounter in later acts.
I really don't think Chekhov's gun is good advice. Years ago, when computers were new, and oodles of memory and good, fast graphics were just a gleam in Steve Jobs' eye, there was something called an adventure game. Text only. You'd get given a description (You are in a dark dungeon. Attached to the wall is a large iron ring, from which hangs a length of chain. There is a bench along one wall, and a stout door with a barred window is opposite it.) and you then have to DO THINGS, to which the program responded by telling you either that you find something, or open the door, or...In THAT scenario, Chekhov's gun is paramount, because you don't have the memory to include anything that won't be needed to solve the problem. In a murder mystery, on the other hand, the red herring is essential. In good fiction, there's a wealth of detail that isn't directly necessary, but builds the atmosphere. The implication of your quote is that you only ever include characters - even minor ones - who are ESSENTIAL to the plot. Which would mean that you'd edit out 90% of human interaction from your story.
I agree totally. If you become obsessed with sticking only to 'facts' that will be 'necessary' as the story progresses, guess what? Your readers are going to see every plot twist coming. If you're writing any kind of thriller, mystery, horror...that can be a fatal flaw. Part of the fun of reading (and writing) is getting sucked into a story and being surprised by what happens. If you become too structured as a writer, including only details that 'matter,' you're going to lose this. Everybody will see the ending coming a mile off. Also, keep in mind that some people read for the richness of the experience, not just to make a sprint to the finish. Structure needs to be there, but maybe not so obvious? For me, @Justin Rocket , I wouldn't get too hung up on creating three 'acts.' That's a structure which was developed for plays on a stage—to give the audience time for a break, to give stagehands time to set a different scene, costume changes, whatever. It's not necessarily a structure that translates well to all forms of fiction. I'd say the first part of your story should kick the plot in a certain direction. If it's going to be about solving a mystery, see how quickly you can get the idea that a mystery exists off the ground. If it's about sibling rivalry ...whether the story leads to murder and mayhem or reconciliation ...let us see the siblings in action ASAP, and put emphasis on the differences between them. If the story is a romance, let us see at least one of the characters before the romance gets a grip, but let us know that a romance is something the character wants, or something the character definitely doesn't want. In other words, will the story be about getting (or losing) a romantic partner, or will it be about the character changing his or her mind about romance? Set readers off in the right direction at the start. That's really the most important thing, in my opinion. Then develop at the pace your story warrants. Don't be afraid to introduce characters and setting at a leisurely pace, let us begin to live the character's world, while keeping in mind the direction you're heading. If you've set your story off properly in a definite direction, people won't mind a slow buildup—unless they're Sprinter Readers who would really rather be doing something else. (You're on your own with that one ...not something I understand at all.) If you introduce too many characters too quickly, readers get overloaded with names and start losing track of who these characters are, never mind not really becoming emotionally engaged with any of them. Let your readers get to know your characters. That's probably the most important thing you can do at the start. Then start making things difficult for your main characters—or even more difficult, if things were already difficult at the beginning. Any story where problems are easily solved isn't very exciting to read. While Swain has many helpful tips to offer a starting writer, there are other books around that take different approaches. I'd do yourself the favour of reading a few more, just to get a variety of opinion. Try a few that are less concerned with structure, maybe, and more concerned with other aspects of story building. One of the most recent I've acquired and read is Story Trumps Structure: How to write unforgettable fiction by breaking the rules, by the award-winning novelist Steven James, which was published by Writers' Digest Books in 2014. Here's an excerpt from the blurb on the back of the book: While Story Trumps Structure IS just another how-to book, it contains a lot worth taking on board. It's not my favourite of all my books of this type, but it's different enough to warrant a look. I have a whole bookshelf of 'how-to' books, and find they all have something of interest. What's even better, they can stimulate ideas.
Cool. Make sure you highlight the crap out of that book or take lots of notes. It's hard to keep it all straight until you really absorb it. And just for the record, I think it's perfectly valid to learn to write within narrow confines before opening up to the entire universe. After all, genre is a way of confining a story to a narrow set of parameters. I can't imagine anyone publishing (or even reading) a story that was equal parts mystery, hard science fiction, fantasy, horror, police procedural, speculative fiction, etc. etc. I think a writer has to put limits on a story or it simply won't be readable.
I remember being eaten by a grue. Good times I believe the best red herrings can be introduced while adhering to Chekhov's gun. The victim's brother who lives in poverty whom you learned about in the first act (and whose daughter, you discover in the second act, desperately needs a medical procedure he can't afford) can be a red herring. The wealthy victim was a rat bastard who refused to help get that medical care. The protagonist spends time following the brother/red herring. The actual killer (the abused wife of the rat bastard) justifies the victim's murder, in part, on the grounds that more good would result from the victim's death (the neice' needed medical care being an example) then the victim's continued life. Remember, nothing about Chekhov's gun says anything about how that gun is used.
