Writing Amazing Characters.pdf

7/30/2019 Writing Amazing Characters.pdf

1/35

Whats Your Character?

A Compilation of Articles on Character

2011

by: Tabitha Olson


2/35

CHARACTERS 2

DIALOGUE 18

POINT OF VIEW 25

THOUGHTS 30


3/35

Putting Characters Through the Wringer

Not too long ago, I had a discussion with a fellow writer about putting our much loved

characters through difficult situations. My friend was having trouble with her story, and her

critiquers all said the same thing: the MC had very little growth, and the things she learned

seemed contrived.

So I read the story, and I, too, felt the same way. On top of that, I had no sympathy for

the main character, but I couldn't clearly see why. So I read it again, made some notes, asked

some questions, and then it hit me. The MC had life way, way too easy. Sure, bad things

happened to her, but they weren't that bad. This made her seem whiny and weak, because if

she can't deal with this, then there's no way she can deal with real problems.

I told this to my friend, and she was on the verge of tears at the idea of putting her MCthrough anything worse. But, in the end, that's what she did, and her story was much better for

it.

That got me thinking about my characters. I have no problem with throwing them off a

cliff with nothing but a shoestring to climb back up. And that bothered me. I mean, what does

that say about me? How could I be so willing to do this? I lay in bed that night thinking about it,

wondering if I was really a bad person and just didn't know it.

Then it hit me. When I was in high school, I was presented with this question: "If you

had the power to change anything about your life, what would you change?" My immediate

response was "that's easy, I'd change this, this, this...." Then I started thinking about how each

of those incidents affected me as a person. If they were taken away, I might not be the person I

am today.

But I like who I've become. I think I have a unique perspective, and would really hate to

lose that. So, I changed my mind. I wouldn't change those things. In fact, the only things I would

change are so small that, in the grand scheme of things, it wouldn't matter if they stayed where

they were. This revelation was a turning point in my life, and put me on the road to accepting

who I am as a whole, complete, person.

Our experiences help to make us who we are. Who we become. The same thinghappens to a main character. So if we don't do anything to her, then how can she grow and

change? She can't. Then, not only do you have no story, but you have a character that no one

loves. If you really want to see how your MC can change or grow, then find out what she loves

the most. And then take it from her. You can bet she won't be happy about that, and she might

surprise you in how she reacts.


4/35

I want my characters to grow in unimaginable ways. I cry when I think of what they can

become. But in order to do that, I have to put them through the wringer, many times, then

throw them overboard. So I guess that means I love them...in a bizzare, twisted way. (gulp)

Sheesh.


5/35

Writing 3-D Characters

When I browse agent and editor blogs, interviews, submission preferences, etc, there's

something I see over and over. They want to see vivid, believable, three-dimensional

characters. Which is great! They're telling us what they want. But...

How do you create these kinds of characters? Unless you're writing an autobiography,

it's going to be more involved than writing down what you would do given a bunch of difficult

situations.

Let's start by examining two people, PersonA and PersonB.

If these two are in the exact same situation, will they react exactly the same? No. They

may have similar reactions, but not the same because they're individuals. And no twoindividuals are exactly alike. Let's put them in a situation.

PersonA and PersonB are walking together down the sidewalk. A mugger jumps from an

alley, demanding all their money. What do PersonA and PersonB do? Well, that depends on

them.

Instinct and fear tell us to give up our money and run like hell. So, what if both PersonA

and PersonB do this? Does that make their reactions are exactly the same? No, it doesn't,

because we don't know what they're thinking as they're running away. PersonA might be

thinking "I can't believe I was so careless around that alley. I'll never walk down that street

again." But, PersonB might be thinking "I can't believe I let that jerk bully me into giving up my

wallet. I'll never back down again."

Should they be in the same situation again, their individual thoughts will lead them to

completely different reactions in the future. PersonA is led by fear, and is fine with that.

PersonB is ashamed at what his fear made him do, and will change his behavior next time

around. To me, even though they did the same thing, that makes PersonA's reaction extremely

different from PersonB's reaction.

So, how do we figure out what PersonA and PersonB are going to think? And why they'd

be thinking it? Character worksheets? Research? Interviews? Yes, those will help. But,personally, I think it's harder than that. I think we, as writers, need to learn how to put

ourselves in other people's shoes - figure out how they view things, how they react to certain

situations - even if you disagree with their methods.

When I create a character and put him/her into a rough situation, I ask myself two

questions: "What would I do in this situation" and "What would my character do?" The answers


6/35

are usually similar, but not exactly the same. If your answer is exactly the same as what you

would do, then you probably need to rethink your character (unless you are writing an

autobiography, of course).


7/35

Change in Your Characters

WhenCheryl Klein spoke on plot at Prairie Writers Day, there was one thing she really

hammered home: your main character must change. Its part of the definition of internal plot.

Ive heard the same thing from many others, and its rare that I enjoy a story where the

main character doesnt change. So this idea of change must be true, but my question is this:

what does change mean, and how is it applied?

Websters definition of change:

to make the form, nature, content, future course, etc., of (something) different from

what it is or from what it would be if left alone; to transform or convert; to become

different; to become altered or modified; to become transformed or converted

(usually fol. by into); to pass gradually into

Hmm. Sounds pretty drastic, especially if your character is a baby-stepper. Some

characters are good at altering a particular mindset, eliminating or adding to a huge part of his

normal life, or even changing of who he is. Others...not so much.

If your character is resistant to change (like many people in the real world), what do you

do? What if his life is not too bad the way it is? Does that automatically mean his story will flop?

I dont think so.

I think that there are varying degrees of change. With a character whos open to change,

his growth must be more drastic than the ones who arent open to change. With a character

whos not open to change, he still needs to grow in some way, even if its simply taking one tiny

step toward the change he needs to make.

I think a lot of writers make a huge mistake in this area. They think their characters need

to change, so they change them, regardless of whether its the right kind of change for that

character. But how do we know what the right kind of change is? Its all in the character, and

writing whats consistent with what your character would do, given the circumstances hes

under.

For example, Ive said before that I didnt think Frankies change was consistent with hercharacter in THE DISREPUTABLE HISTORY OF FRANKIE LANDAU-BANKS. Given what we knew of

her, and how good she was at getting what she wanted, her initial confession didnt fit her

character. Nor did her actions afterward fit.

Conversely, Connors change in UNWIND makes perfect sense. What starts off as self-

preservation turns into a desire to help more than just himself. Given the circumstances hes
http://tabwriter.blogspot.com/2008/12/character-of-plot.htmlhttp://tabwriter.blogspot.com/2008/12/character-of-plot.htmlhttp://tabwriter.blogspot.com/2008/12/character-of-plot.htmlhttp://tabwriter.blogspot.com/2008/12/character-of-plot.html


8/35

been in, hed have to be a horrible person to not take this path. Readers dont generally like

reading about horrible people. : )

Anyway, I guess my point is that, yes, a character must change. But the level of change

must be consistent with who your character is.


9/35

Why Should I Care?

Recently, I read EVIL GENIUS by Catherine Jinks. It was enjoyable and funny with good

plot twists, but I didnt love it. At first, I thought it was because it was a bit too long and the

storys flavor wasnt something I naturally gravitate toward. But, after reading the sequel,

GENIUS SQUAD, I discovered that wasnt true. The reason I didnt love these books is because

they evoked very little emotion from me.

The obvious question is why? Why didnt these books evoke much emotion? The main

character has interesting problems and grows in wonderful ways. The minor characters play

good roles both in the story and the main characters growth. Plus, the story was engaging. So

why wasnt there much emotion involved?

I didnt see it while reading the first book, but it became obvious in the second. The wayboth stories are written, the language used to tell the story, keeps us at a distance from the

main character.

Okay, but, is that really a problem? Hes not real, so why should we care how much

distance there is between us? Well, in real life, how do long-distance relationships usually turn

out? Sometimes theyre fine, but often times they fail because there isnt enough closeness.

I think fiction is very similar. The closer we are to the main character, the more emotion

well feel, the better well understand his motivations and actions, and the louder well cheer

for him. If theres distance, then he becomes this person who did this thing in a story. Kind of

like reading about people in the news. We might enjoy what they did or feel sad about what

happened to them, but then we forget everything because we dont know them on a personal

level. If we did know them, you can bet we wouldnt forget anything.

I think this is the hardest part of writing fiction, especially for introverted writers. Im an

introvert, and hold myself at a nice, safe distance from people I dont know well. In my early

novels, I did the same with my main characters. Often, the minor characters were easier to

know than the main characterwhich was another part of me coming out. Im good at reading

other people, but hide myself a little too well from others. As a result, the most common advice

I got from fellow critiquers was to give them more of my main character. In order to do that, I

had to do something far scarier: expose my main character completely, thus exposing myself.Yikes!

But its necessary. One of the biggest thingsI learned growing up is that we cant really

know someone unless theres no distance between us. If theres distance, then theres room to

hide faults and shortcomings. And if a character hides his faults from us, then how can we

identify with him? A little, yeah, but not completely.


10/35

So, I guess what Im saying, in a very round-about way, is that, in order to evoke

emotion for a fictional character, we have to create a realistic relationship between that

character and the reader by eliminating all distance between them. How much distance is

between you and your significant other? Maybe a little...we do need personal space, after all.

But there cant be any between a character and a reader. They must be so close that the twopeople become one, so the reader is almost living vicariously through the character.

To do that, the reader needs to be directly in the story. We need to show it to him, not

tell it. Telling is distance; showing is transporting the reader right into the scene. Then, if your

character is well-developed, then the reader will experience everything you show him through

your characters actions, dialogue and monologue. And the reader wont be able to help but

feel connected to this imaginary person.

All this is hard work. Really hard work. But, if we dont do it, then our readers wont

connect. And, if they dont connect, why should they care about what happens to our

characters? If they dont care, why should they read our work?


11/35

Do Your Characters Take Over?

Fellow blogger Sherrie Petersen recently did a fantastic post about characters. She

talked about how characters can become so real that they take over your story and go in

directions that dont jive with your plans. Its an awesome post and you should go read it. Like,

now.

Anyway, that got me thinking. Ive had this happen to me, but its never gotten to the

point where my characters have undermined my original story plan. It came close a few times

in my early novels (the ones that are now in drawers). When they started going off track, I took

a step back to see if this was what the story really needed. If it was, then Id readjust my plan. If

it wasnt, then Id adjust my characters to get them back on track.

Recently, though, it doesnt really happen to me anymore. I hadnt noticed this until Iread Sherrie's post, and I wanted to figure out what changed. I think part of it is my writing

process, and the rest has to do with me...

My writing process:

First Draft:

A hand-written, god-awful mess that no one would be able to decipher except me.

This ultimately gets turned into an outline, because that's about all it's good for.

Second Draft:

A translation of the outline into story form. Basically, its the raw material, or lump

of clay, that will be molded into a full-fledged story in subsequent drafts.

Third thru Zillionth Drafts:

Adding in layers of characterization, subplots, subtext, etc. Just like with a sculpture,

its the details that make a story so convincing.

In my first draft, I do a lot of brainstorming. I mean, a lot. This is where I give my

characters free reign and let them go wherever they want, however they want to get there. I

can afford it at this point because I havent committed to anything yet (as in, I havent written

100 pages that I might end up deleting). So I let my characters go nuts until they've collapsed on

the ground, twitching from overstimulated indulgence. :) While they recover, I lay out all theplaces they went, keep the best and toss the rest, and then I start laying out the storys

timeline. This eventually turns into the outline. Its a lot of work. Okay, its an INSANE amount

of work. But, when Im done, I feel confident that Ive got the best path possible for my

characters. So if they try to go off course later on, I can put them back on track without the

slightest blink. :)


12/35

But, as I said earlier, this is only part of it. The rest of it is me as a writer, and how I see

my stories. I draw many parallels between my stories and my kids. They are both creations that

came from me, and I am responsible for them. For my kids, Im responsible for guiding them

toward becoming decent human beings that contribute to society. That means they dont get to

do all the things they want, because not all of it is good for them. I see my stories the same

way. The characters may want to go off toward X, but I know they need to go to Y becausethats whats good for the story. Its not easy (neither is parenting, btw), but I always find a way

to muddle through and find a good balance that will keep the characters true to themselves, as

well as to the story.

Nathan Bransford also did a great post on this subject a few months ago, which is

definitely worth reading if you havent already.

Anyway, thats how I balance characters with story. How do you balance yours?


13/35

Realistic vs. Believable Fiction

In the last few weeks, there has been some interesting discussion on author Nancy

Kresss blog and The League of Extraordinary Writers regarding the believability of the Hunger

Games books.

That got me thinking about the whole concept of realistic vs. believable. Which is more

important? Can you have one without the other? Or must they have equal weight? Lets look at

the definitions:

realistic

1. interested in, concerned with, or based on what is real or practical: a realistic

estimate of costs; a realistic planner.

2. pertaining to, characterized by, or given to the representation in literature or artof things as they really are: a realistic novel.

3. resembling or simulating real life

believe

1. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something,

although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so 2. to have confidence

or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to

3. to have confidence in the assertions of (a person)

4. to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a

given action or involved in a given situation

5. to suppose or assume; understand

So, basically, one can see if something is realistic either by the way something is shown,

or by relating to it with personal experience. In either case, its a tangible or specific kind of

thing. If one finds something believable, then one may not know whether its real, but its been

presented in a way that looks/sounds/seems plausible.

In Ms. Kresss case, she found the premise behind the Hunger Games unrealistic, but

many people still found it believable. So does that mean believability is more important than

realistic? Maybe. It all comes down to how its done.

Many science fiction or fantasy novels are based on ideas that arent realistic:

spaceships, cryogenic freezing, magic wands, dragons, etc. However, the best of these stories

are solidly constructed such that the unrealistic becomes believable. Achieving this goal can be

done by creating a rich and thorough setting with established rules.


14/35

Take Candor, for example. In the real world, its not possible to brainwash someone

through subliminal messages (not to this extent, anyway), but the story is so solidly constructed

that the reader can believe its possible in this instance. Same with Harry Potter. Rowling built

her world with so many intricacies and details that the reader can totally believe theres a

whole world of magic hidden from normal humans.

But what about people? What does it mean for characters to be believable and realistic?

Here, I think the need changes drastically. I think characters need to be equally realistic and

believable. Actually, with characters, I think the terms realistic and believable are synonymous.

For example, its neither realistic nor believable that a parent would briefly pop in on a beloved

child in the hospital, even if that child was a teenager or a legal adult. Not without a good

reason, anyway. A really good reason. No. That parent would be at his childs side for the

duration, providing all the love and support he could.

This also applies to groups of people. Here, however, there is a need for caution. Its

easy to lump a group of people together and think of them as one, and then assign them a

certain behavior. Some examples:

Career women dont spend enough time with their families.

Old people cant keep up with the times.

An oppressed populace doesnt have the will to rebel.

Its more accurate to say that some career women dont spend enough time with their

families. Or that most old people cant keep up with the times. Or that most oppressed people

dont have the will torebel against their oppressors. But its neither realistic nor believable to

make a statement like this about all of them.

A crowd /populace/category/etc. of people is really a group of individuals. And

individuals react differently to different things. This needs to be taken into account as a group

evolves over time. Change doesnt happen easily within a group, but it does happen. And it

almost always starts with an individual.

This post is now entirely too long, so Ill stop. But Id love to know what you think. Do

you think believability is more important that realistic? Do you think it extends beyond what

Ive talked about here? Do you think Im wrong? Please, do tell!


15/35

Writing Inside Out

I think that the hardest part of writing is unlearning everything you know and then

relearning it with a completely different perspective.

For example, when I first started writing stories, I wrote them exactly the way I would

verbally tell them to someone. As a result, my writing was riddled with telling phrases like he

felt/saw/heard/knew, or she noticed/realized/thought/etc. When verbally telling someone a

story, the person youre telling just wants to know the basics of what happened so he can get

to the climax as quickly as possible. So, when we verbally tell a story, we tend to focus on

whats happening on the surface.

New writers tend to take this practice and apply it to their writing. I did. Its what I

knew, and, verbally, it worked. But it doesnt completely work on the page, and it took meseveral years to figure out why.

When we write with the intent to show the reader what is happening to the main

character, we are focusing on whats happening outside the character. This isn't necessarily a

bad thing. It's good to see what's happening very clearly, otherwise the reader will be confused

as to what's going on. But we can't leave it at that. To get a fully rounded experience, we need

to know how everything affects our characters. In order to know this, we need to see what goes

on inside the character. In other words, we need to write from the inside out.

This is something that mustbe done in first person, because thats its nature. First

person is inside the head of the main character, so everything the reader sees must be from the

perceptions, biases, misconceptions, and assumptions of the character. Everything I see gets

interpreted through my own experiences and perceptionsas a result, there is an inherent

bias, whether I intend it or not, simply because I have to process information based on the

things I know. The same is true for characters written in first person.

So, when writing a character in first person, its best not to focus on the main

characters exterior, especially facial expressions, when exterior events affect him in big ways.

These observations are fine for minor characters because we're not supposed to be in their

heads. But, for main characters, this doesn't work well because it takes us out of his head and

makes us observers rather than letting us experience her situation for ourselves. Instead, focuson whats happening inside his head. What emotions are going through him? What thoughts do

those emotions trigger? Then, how will he act as a result? In other words, write him from the

inside out.

Third person is slightly different because its nature is on the outside looking in.

However, limited third still needs some of the closeness that first person gives the reader, but


16/35

it's often not there. There is a way to get it, though, and the process is exactly the same as first

person. As you're writing your story's events, insert some of your character's thoughts here and

there. Not necessarily separated out in italics with s/he thought tags, but woven into the

narrative itself.

For example:Uh-oh. Mom was fuming. Cassie had really messed up. Would she be grounded for a

month? Or more? If she was, then how was she going to meet up with Jason like

she'd promised? If she didn't help him, then he was going to fail his midterms and

suffer the beating of a lifetime from his father. She had to think of something.

The above paragraph is written from Cassie's perspective. We are given her particular

perceptions, assumptions, and thoughts about the world around her and what might happen to

her as a result of her actions. Essentially, we are in her head and the focus is on her from the

inside instead of what she's doing on the outside.

If we experience the emotions and thoughts of the character, then well understand his

resulting actions and form a close connection to him. This creates a stronger and more

enjoyable reading experience, which we all strive for. :)


17/35

Authors Are Such Characters

I used to wonder if all authors had multiple personality disorder. I mean, we cant write

the same story with the same kind of character over and over again, so, where does it all come

from? Are authors cracked? Do we lead secret lives that no one, even ourselves, knows about?

Probably not. :) Which still leaves us with the question of where all these characters

come from. How can one person create so many different kinds of people?

Wellwe dont. It only looks like we do. :)

To write effective characters, you need to know people. I dont mean knowing the

different types of peoplethats too general. You need to know people on an individual level. It

usually starts with your friends and family members, then it might include coworkers andfriends of friends and such. Basically, youre observing the little details in what they do and how

they react to various things, and how that translates into who they are as a whole.

After youve done this with enough people (in sufficient detail) then you might find

yourself making predictions about how someone might react or what choice he/she might

make in a given situation. And you might even be right.

This is the groundwork for creating fully fleshed out, believable, and relatable

characters. Its not the type of character thats important, its the person behind the character.

People are individuals with independent thoughts and reactions, and observing others with a

keen eye for detail will get you one piece of the character puzzle. Thats the good news. The

bad news is that its only one piece. :)

You also have to know yourself. Really know yourself. Your strengths and weaknesses,

neuroses, biases, quirks, likes and dislikes, emotional scars, etc. And, you need the ability to dig

deep within and pull out experiences from various aspects of your life. Thats the other piece of

the character puzzle, and often the hardest to assemble coherently. After all, this means we

have to face every aspect of ourselves, even the parts we dont like so much.

After you put those two pieces together, you have a formula for great characters. They

consist of various aspects of the author, plus some enhancements based on experiences withother people. And the root personality of each character comes from the author, because thats

the best way to fully understand the characters. If we dont understand our characters, then

how can we expect the reader to? Thats kind of like explaining calculus when we dont

understand it ourselves. Not very helpful. :)


18/35

Just to be clear, this applies to ALL characters, main and minor. Minor characters are no

less important than main characters, and dont deserve to be typecast. The more realistic all

the characters are, the better experience the reader will have. And then youll have a fan who

will look for more of your books.

Disclaimer: in the vein of too much internal monologue, this does not necessarily applyto first drafts. First drafts need a certain amount of exploration, and character is often a big part

of that. Some writers manage to know their characters inside and out before they begin writing,

but most tend to discover them along the way. So, if you dont get your characters perfect the

first time around, dont worry! Thats what revision is for. :)


19/35

Action Speaks Louder Than Words

There was a term I heard early on in my writing career that left me baffled for the

longest time. Its called Talking Heads. And no, I dont mean a music band. Uh, ohdid I just

date myself? Hmmm, moving onthis is what I mean:

Jane? What are you doing tomorrow night? said Albert.

Nothing. Why?

I thought maybe you and I could go out.

Oh. Well, okay. We could do that, said Jane.

Okay, great. Ill pick you up at eight, said Albert.

Whats going on in this exchange? Albert asks Jane out, and she accepts. Okay. But what

else is going on? Nothing, right? No one is doing anything. They are just talking back and forth.

Yeah? And? Its called speaking, right?

Well, how many people do you know that sit perfectly still, dont fidget, dont show

body language, or dont alter tone of voice while they speak? Dont know about you, but I dont

know anyone like that. And good dialog needs to show all these tiny details.

People rarely sit and do nothing. Even the shyest, most withdrawn person gives away

something they show us the tell-tale signs of being withdrawn, or being uncomfortable talking

to a stranger. Im a shy person. Im hard to read, and have been told so. And yet, Im still

showing the other person something: Im showing that Im hard to read! Someone whos easy

to read will be showing much, much more. And it's up to us, as writers, to pay attention to

these things, and then include them in our stories. It makes the characters more real, and the

story more engaging.

Lets take another look at the above exchange, except this time were going to pay

attention to body language.

Jane? Albert flipped his finger over the corner of a packet of sweetener. What are

you doing tomorrow night?

Nothing. She glanced at the restroom door, where Allison had gone over tenminutes ago. Why?

I thought maybe Flip, flip. You and I could go out.

Janes head snapped around. Oh. Her gaze fell to the table, where she shifted the

salt and pepper shakers back and forth. Back and forth. Well, okay. We could do

that. She glanced sideways at the restroom door.


20/35

Alberts lips stretched wide across his uneven teeth. Okay, great. Ill pick you up at

eight. He shoved the sweetener back into its container, patting it down, then

folding his arms across the table.

Whats happening here? Lots. Granted, this is omni POV, and you could say that I went

overboard with the details. But we havent had the chance to get to know the characters, sothere were assumptions I couldn't make. Still, we can see that Albert is nervous about asking

Jane out, and is relieved when she accepts. Jane doesnt want to go out with him, but doesnt

know what else to say so she says yes.

So, what does that get us? Well, action sets tone. But this post is already too long, so

thats what Ill be discussing next week. :)


21/35

Tone Deaf? Show Me The Melody

Last week, we looked at a simple exchange of dialog in Piece A:

Jane? What are you doing tomorrow night? said Albert.

Nothing. Why?

I thought maybe you andI could go out.

Oh. Well, okay. We could do that, said Jane.

Okay, great. Ill pick you up at eight, said Albert.

Then added action to it in Piece B:


you doing tomorrow night?Nothing. She glanced at the restroom door, where Allison had gone over ten

minutes ago. Why?





Alberts lips stretched wide across uneven teeth. Okay, great. Ill pick you up at

eight. He shoved the sweetener back into its container, patting it down, then folded

his arms across the table.

Do you see the shift? What are the major differences between the two pieces? Setting,

personal preferences, characterization? Piece A has none of these things, which makes it sound

flat and boring. Piece B shows us that Jane and Albert are probably in a restaurant, that Albert

likes Jane, but Jane doesnt necessarily feel the same way.

How do we know this? Lets look at one line of Janes dialog, from both pieces.

A) Oh. Well, okay. We could do that, said Jane.

B) Janes head snapped around. Oh. Her gaze fell to the table, where she shifted the

salt and pepper shakers back and forth. Back and forth. Well, okay. We could do that. She

glanced sideways at the restroom door.

How do these sound to you? The same? Probably not. The first could sound like

anything. Jane could be nervous, excited without wanting to look excited, scared, horrified,

anything. There are no clues to tell us what shes thinking or how shes feeling. The second

piece gives us the clues we need, so its easier for her voice to fill our heads.


22/35

This is tone. Action sets the characters tone of voice. An annoyed person will do things

like shift her weight, not make eye contact, sigh loudly, etc. So if we see her doing these kind of

things, then well hear the annoyance in her voice when she speaks (check out The Bookshelf

Muse blog for an excellent Emotion Thesaurus; it illustrates actions associated with certain

emotions). If the character isnt doing anything, theres no tone and the character sounds flat

and lifeless. Tone, combined with the right choice of words, is what gives dialog authenticity,or, what makes it ring true.

A writer could study todays teenagers i.e. visit shopping malls, movie theaters, and

other teen haunts - write down everything she hears, use it in dialog, and it could still sound

forced, flat and false. It all depends on what the teenagers are doing. If what they do matches

up with their personalities and the dialog, then youve got well-written dialog, with clear tone,

that rings with authenticity.

But, you say. Arent you missing something here?

I surely am! Thanks for pointing that out. :) You probably picked up on that when I

mentioned the Emotion Thesaurus, because the missing element is emotion! Without it, you've

got nothing. Emotion works behind the scenes of Action. Its the driving force, sets the

direction, and ultimately sets the tone. So, once youve identified the appropriate emotions for

a particular scene, then chosen the resulting actions and words, youve got yourself a stunning

set of dialog.

Once again, this post has gotten quite long. And, once again, I havent covered

everything. How do we know whos speaking? How long should an exchange of dialog be? And,

do we have to include everything? Those topics, and probably more, will come next week.


23/35

Tag Me Brilliantly, Baby!

Last week, we looked at how to get Tone from Emotion and Action in a simple exchange

of dialog:


you doing tomorrow night?

Nothing. She glanced at the restroom door, where Allison had gone over ten

minutes ago. Why?





Alberts lips stretched wide across his teeth. Okay, great. Ill pick you up at eight.He shoved the sweetener back into its container, patting it down, then folded his

arms across the table.

There are a lot of identifiers is the above exchange. Theres at least one sentence of

description with each line of dialog. The good part of that is we always know whos speaking, as

well as the tone being used. The bad part is theres a lot of it. A bit too much.

In a regular story, the history is provided gradually, so we get to know the characters

along with their likes/dislikes. In a writing exercise, thats not always possiblebut Im going

attempt it now.

Story history:

Albert has just been dumped by his long-time girlfriend, Vanessa. Hes normally fun,

suave, and charming, but this breakup has him moping about. Jane has had a crush on Albert

since forever, but doesnt know what to think about this new, moping Albert. She and her

friend, Allison, were out for a snack, then ran into Albert. Allison slipped away to the restroom,

giving a secret thumbs-up to her friendmuch to Janes chagrin. Jane fidgets, keeping her eyes

fixed on the restroom door.


you doing tomorrow night?Nothing. Why?

I thought maybe you and I could go out.

Janes head snapped around. Oh. She shifted the salt and pepper shakers back and

forth. Back and forth. Well, okay. We could do that. She glanced at the restroom door.

Alberts lips stretched wide. Okay, great. Ill pick you up at eight. He shoved the

sweetener back into its container, patting it down, then folded his arms across the table.


24/35

Since we know the characters histories and personalities (at least somewhat), its easier

to hear the appropriate Tone even without the Action. In this exchange, the only time Action is

needed is when the characters are reacting to some part of the conversation. If they arent

reacting, their personalities combined with the storys history can create the appropriate Tone.

This kind of thing is easy to do if there are only two speakers. But what if there are

three? Or more? It can get cumbersome to give everyone some kind of Action each time he/she

speaks.

Personalities can play a huge part here, as can using the said tag to identify the

speaker. For personalities, if the characters have been well-developed, then the reader can

probably identify the speaker just from what he/she says. But what if its not possible in a

particular scene? Thats where the said tag comes in useful. When a character doesnt need

to react to the conversation, using said is the easiest way to let the reader follow the

conversation.

Lets look at the scene where Allison comes back from the restroom:

The restroom door creaked open, and Allison strolled back to the table, arms

swinging. So, what did I miss?

Im taking Jane out tomorrow night.

Really?

Jane blushed, nodding.

Thats awesome! Allison clapped her hands, face tight with excitement. Where

are you taking her?

Theres a great seafood place on Chester Street. I was thinking we could go there.Im allergic to seafood, said Jane.

Oh. Alberts face drooped. Okay. Well, IllIm sure I can find something youll

like.

In this exchange, Jane spoke up to let Albert know of her allergy to seafood. Introducing

an Action could be cumbersome, and leaving off the tag could have made the declaration

confusing. So, adding in the said clears up whos speaking, without detracting from the

exchange.

Personally, this is the only time Im comfortable using dialog tags. And, I only use said.If I use them anywhere else, I feel like Im being lazy. And if I ever use an adverb with a tag, Im

being ultra lazy! Ive heard many editors and agents talk about how they hate seeing adverbs

with dialog tags. Its classic telling, and should be avoided. If youve got adverbs with your

tags and youre not sure how to get rid of them, look at the Emotion behind the dialog. Then,

imagine the Actions that go with that Emotions. Write that down, and youll be on your way to

showing instead of telling.


25/35

Geez Louise! I cant believe how long this post has gone on. There is just one more thing

I want to add: level of detail. Just as with Action, the reader doesnt need to know all the silly,

boring details that go into a conversation. Jennifer Hubbard has already written an excellent

post on this, so I will just refer you there. Less work for me. :)
http://writerjenn.livejournal.com/37269.htmlhttp://writerjenn.livejournal.com/37269.html


26/35

Too Many Cooks in the Kitchen or a Well-

Run System of Chefs?

Today, I wanted to talk about using multiple points of view in a novel. I see writers

asking about this technique in forums, critique meetings, conferences, basically everywhere.

The question I see most often is I know its considered a no-no to use multiple points of view,

but do I haveto stick to just one person?

This often prompts the same reaction from me. Why is it that a lot of writers think were

not supposed to use more than one point of view? Its obviously possible, because there are

some great books out there with more than one main character. Two good examples are THE

SISTERHOOD OF THE TRAVELING PANTS series and SKIN HUNGER by Kathleen Duey.

Ive never been tempted to write a story from more than one point of view. Why? Well,

to be honest, it scares the daylights out of me. More than one point of view means more than

one major plot line, as well as more than one path of character growth. Also, the multiple plot

lines and character growth need to mesh with the overall story, not unlike a series or trilogy.

But the most daunting concept in multiple points of view is that each character must

have his own story.

For example, in SISTERHOOD, each of the girls experiences, reactions, and growth is

unique. The threads connecting them are the pants, and the fact that they are spending theirfirst summer apart. In SKIN HUNGER, Hahp and Sadima dont even live in the same time frame,

so their stories are so completely different. Yet, there is an underlying thread of magic, as well

as two characters, connecting them.

Lisa Yee did something close to multiple points of view with her MILLICENT MIN series.

Its the same story told three different times, through three different characters. I think that if

shed put all three points of view into one novel, it wouldnt have worked. The reader probably

would have tired of hearing the same thing over and over, even though it was from a different

perspective. Instead, she changed the main character with each book, retelling the same story,

and allowing us to form a connection to each character. Very effective.

I think the reason a lot of writers think they cant use multiple points of view is that its

hard to do right. That is, its easy to head-hop from character to character so you can get every

aspect of your story across, such as things going on that the main character doesnt know

about. But, is it *really* necessary for the reader to know so much so quickly? If the reader

doesnt learn these aspects of the story until the main character does, it creates a stronger

bond between the two. Then the reader can feel whatever emotion the main character


27/35

experiences, and the story ends up having a greater impact. Its harder to write this way, but its

also much more effective.

This is mainly why I didnt care for the SEPTIMUS HEAP series. I assumed the main

character would be Septimus Heap (since the series is named after him), but he didnt even

make an appearance until several chapters in to the first book. And, once he did, we heardnothing from him until the end. It left me scratching my head, and I never picked up the next

book.

Anyway, I think Cheryl Klein said it best at last yearsSCBWIIL conference: for multiple

main characters, each must undergo his own change or internal plot. Otherwise that character

isnt necessary. So, if you are thinking of writing a story with multiple main characters, ask

yourself this. Are you ready or willing to put multiple plots within one story, and then tie them

all together? If not, then perhaps you have a single viewpoint story.
http://tabwriter.blogspot.com/2008/12/character-of-plot.htmlhttp://tabwriter.blogspot.com/2008/12/character-of-plot.htmlhttp://tabwriter.blogspot.com/2008/12/character-of-plot.htmlhttp://tabwriter.blogspot.com/2008/12/character-of-plot.htmlhttp://tabwriter.blogspot.com/2008/12/character-of-plot.html


28/35

How Many Is Too Many?

Two years ago, I wrote a post about multiple points of view in a story. I still hold by what

I saidbasically, for each main character hell need his own path to changebut there are

some other things that have been bouncing around in my head lately, starting with this

question. Why do you needmultiple points of view?

Everything in a story is there for a reason. This character. Those actions. That specific

word. So, if a story is told from more than one point of view, there needs to be a good reason

for that. As in, if you took one of those viewpoints away, the story would feel incomplete. There

has to be something that all viewpoints add to the story that you cant get if you only had one.

Itll add a layer of depth and richness to your story.

On that same note, though, you have to be careful. Too many viewpoints can make yourstory feel repetitive. Especially if youre going to go over similar concepts with each character,

getting his/her unique viewpoint on them. Yes, its unique and it adds something to the story

that a single viewpoint cant, but it can also feel like going around the room and asking

everyone their opinion on X, Y, and Z. Each person is going to have a unique answer, and well

have a well-rounded idea of how people see those conceptswhich, granted, is far better than

asking just one person. But, in the end, you still only have an exploration of X, Y, and Z. A storys

momentum could suffer if you spend so much time exploring the same concepts in different

ways.

Along those same lines, exploring similar concepts in various ways can also make your

story feel a bit diluted. Zeroing in on one or two aspects of a concept can make a huge impact

on your reader. Expressing several aspects can wash it out, making it seem like it doesnt matter

which aspect is presented because they all are. So, even if you have multiple points of view,

your story might be more effective if you dont give everyones reactions to every aspect of the

story. Instead, focus on what you want your story to convey, and then choose the character

that matches that.

Heres a list of books that I thought used multiple points of view effectively:

The Amulet of Samarkand by Jonathan Stroud

Skin Hunger & Sacred Scars by Kathleen Duey

Jekel Loves Hyde by Beth FantaskeyAcross the Universe by Beth Revis

Shiver by Maggie Stiefvater

Blue Plate Special by Michelle Kwasney

The Underneath by Kathi Appelt

Looks by Madeleine George

Sliding on the Edge by C. Lee McKenzie


29/35

Challenge: Plot-Driven or Character-

Driven?

Last week, I wrote a post on the pros and cons of multiple points of view, as well as

effective ways of creating more than one viewpoint. Then Jenn Hubbard came out and said

what had been in the back of my mind the whole time:

I think multiple narrators is a device that has become much more common in

recent years. And, to be honest, I'd like to see writers rely on it a little less.

I wholeheartedly agree. And, Jenn, I always love your comments. :)

I think many writers, particularly those just starting out, tend to rove from character tocharacter because it feels like youre getting more of your story out there. Which, I guess, you

are. But at what expense?

Like Jenn, Ive seen multiple points of view become more common lately. And, like Jenn,

I often wish the story had stayed with one character instead of several. But its not necessarily

because I think the story didnt workI just think it could have been better. Too many points of

view can lessen the impact on the reader, and your subtext can get lost along the way. Also,

having so many characters share their thoughts and opinions can overwhelm the reader, risking

the loss of his interest. A good story has a good balance of everything, and sometimes attaining

that balance requires sticking to a single viewpoint.

Staying in one point of view can be difficult, especially if youve got a complicated plot.

The more complicated the plot, the harder it is to pull off with only one viewpoint. I think many

plot-driven books have more than one point of view for this reason, where the character-driven

books stay with one person. Its just easier. But is it going to bring out the best possible aspects

of your story?

For any of you interested, heres a challenge. Make a list of your top ten books with

multiple points of view. Just for fun, see if you can determine whether each story is plot-driven

or character-driven. Next, try to imagine the story in only one viewpoint. Does it work? If youre

really up for a challenge, then turn this into a writing exercise and create an outline of thatstory using only one viewpoint. Do you still have a complete story? My guess is that, at least for

some of them, you will.

For your own story, is it plot-driven or character-driven? If its character-driven, you

probably have one point of view. If not, you might have more than one. And, if thats true, then

I have another challenge for you. Try writing your story from one persons perspective. If that


30/35

sounds incredibly daunting or impossible, well, all I have to say is this: thats good. And, no, Im

not evil or masochistic or anything of the sort. :) Its good because that means taking on this

challenge will push you out of your comfort zone, and many many many amazing things can

come of that. :)

Whos up for the challenge?


31/35

What to Do With Thoughts

This particular question has come and gone over the years, and lately its been coming

back. I think its partly because of a new (and popular) style of writing conflicting with the

standard rules. I cant count how many times Ive heard it in the last few months: Should direct

thoughts and/or internal monologue be italicized?

Short answer: Technically, yes. Thats the rule for distinguishing between prose and

thoughts.

Long answer: Not necessarily. This is one rule that can easily and effectively be bent, but

it all depends on your story (and, yes, I realize this is an oft repeated mantra of mine).

First, lets take a look at a couple styles.

If you switch from third to first person to show your character's thoughts, then you need

to use italics. If you switch from past tense to present tense to show your characters thoughts,

then you should use italics (though this can get a bit tricky). After all, the rule clearly states that

thoughts should be italicized in these instances.

But what if we dont switch? What if we stay in third person, or stay in past tense? That

would mean were also staying in the narrative, right? But does that mean we cant convey

thoughts?

Not at all. It's certainly possible to convey thoughts and ideas as a part of the narrative,

without italics, as long as you keep things consistent. That means two things. 1) The entire

narrative turns into the characters thoughts, and the whole story is written from his/her bias.

2) You cant switch from third to first person, or from past to present tense (except, of course,

when you can). If you do, itll make the prose inconsistent and will likely jar the reader.

To me, not using italics makes the narration seamless because I feel like I am the

character. When thoughts are put in italics, there's a subtle reminder that we're going deeper

into the main character's headimplying that we weren't there a second ago. If there are no

italics, then I feel like Ive been there all along. I find this style far more effective, even in third

person.

As a result, the storys voice tends to be stronger because the whole narration is the

character's playground for thoughts and opinions and his/her personality has more

opportunities to show through.


32/35

But what about direct thoughts vs. internal monologue? Shouldnt direct thoughts be

italicized no matter what? Again, technically, yes. But I don't actually see them as being that

different. They're both thoughts, really, where one is put in italics and the other isn't. You can

still effectively convey the necessary emotions and such by turning the internal monologue into

something like direct thoughts. Hence, no italics necessary.

There are plenty of successful first and third person stories that don't italicize internal

monologue. The 'thoughts' are simply a part of the narrative, and it matches the POV, tense,

and voice. But the information is most definitely the character's opinions, or it at least has that

character's bias and perspective.

That said, it all depends on the story, and what kind of style that story demands. The

only way to figure out what you, the author, should do is to experiment and see what works

best for your story.


33/35

Chatty Main Characters

Last week, I talked about how internal thoughts dont necessarily need italics to indicate

they are thoughtsthat the entire narration is coming from the main character, and can be

considered his thoughts. This opens up all kinds of possibilities to really get inside his head and

see for ourselves what he thinks and feels about things. And thats a good thing, right?

For the most part, yes. The closer the narrative is to the character, the better we

understand him, and the easier it is to make a strong connection. Also, the chattier the

character, the stronger the voice. BUT (there is always a but), you can also run the risk of

having a main character thats too chatty. We want our characters to have opinions, and a

clever comment here and there, but if were getting a comment every other sentence, thats

too much.

A storys pacing can be affected by many things. Flashbacks, back story, a lull in the plot,

a weak or indecisive main character, too many characters, drawn-out scenes, etc. Its also

affected by internal monologue. If the main character is giving us a side note every two

seconds, its going to get in the way of the storys forward momentum and bog it down. The

most effective way to weave in thoughts is to find a good balance.

The way to do this is to only let your character comment on what is absolutely

necessary, at that moment in time. If a key piece of information is revealed, then we need to

know what the character thinks about that. If he witnesses something that triggers an emotion,

we need to know about that. But we dont need to know what he thinks about everything little

thing that comes across the page.

Disclaimer: this does NOT apply to first drafts. When youre writing a first draft, the

whole point is to be as creative as possible and give your characters free reign. If you let them

comment on every little thing in the story, itll help you get a clearer picture of what kind of

people they are. That will make their actions more organic to the story, and it will suck your

reader in to the point where he wont be able to put the book down.

So, if your character is filling up your story with comments and opinions, thats okay!

Just be aware that youll need to delete at least half of that when you revise. :)


34/35

Challenge: Going Filter-less

Last week, I talked about how too much internal monologue can be a detriment to your

story. Today, I want to talk about how to make the internal monologue as effective as possible.

Once you have a balance of story vs. internal thoughts, you want your characters

thoughts to have the best kind of impact on your reader. Meaning, they are appropriate for the

reader to know, and the overall style fits with the intent.

I am referring here to filtering language. A filter is a layer of something in between the

reader and the rest of the story.Sharon Darrow, instructor at the Vermont College of Fine Arts,

compares filtering language to a play with the curtain still down. A person (or filter) is standing

at the curtain watching the play, and then telling the audience whats happening. I.E.: Priscilla

just tripped and fell down, and it looks like it hurt. Oh! She just noticed that Johns the one whotripped her, and now shes mad at him. Etc.

When we write, we want the reader to be as close to our stories as possible, right? The

closer he is, the easier it is to understand our characters motivations and actions. We dont

want a filter to translate the story for the reader. We want him to interpret it for himself.

These are your basic filtering phrases:

He saw She heard I smelled He tasted She felt

I noticed He realized She thought I watched He wondered

She hoped I considered He could see etc.

Each of them tells us that the character is doing something, just like the person standing

by the curtain at the play. But it doesnt show us how its done. The how is what makes the

impact on the reader. Anyone can watch a football game, but how they watch it shows us who

they are. A sports fan will either cheer or yell at the players, but a non-sports fan will likely be

bored and glance at the clock often.

There is also another drawback with filtering language: using I excessively.

- I saw Tom trying to peel his banana.

- I heard Jenna laugh at Mikes dumb joke.

- I smelled Joes musky, overpowering cologne.

Each sentence is not actually about the main character, but the character makes it

about her by telling us that she saw/heard/smelled something. That can often give the

impression that shes self-centered, even if shes not. Ive heard more than one person

complain about the selfish attitudes of YA characters, and I think this is where most of it comes

from.
http://www.vermontcollege.edu/node/189http://www.vermontcollege.edu/node/189http://www.vermontcollege.edu/node/189http://www.vermontcollege.edu/node/189


35/35

If youre writing in third person, then you dont have the excessive I problem. But you

still have the lack-of-how problem (see the sports fan above). In third person, you are already

distant. Adding in a filtering layer will only make it harder for your reader to connect to the

story, which is the last thing you want. Show us the how and well love you for it.

Challenge:

I challenge all of you to take a scene that contains filter language and rewrite it so that it

doesnt. Feel free to post the before and after in the comments so we can all enjoy. :)

Documents

Writing Amazing Characters.pdf