« Agent Wimpy & Chekov | Main | backstory and minor characters »
how much do you want to see?
I am often tempted to spend more time on very minor, very fleeting characters than I really need to. I don't like glossing over anybody, though of course I do it from time to time; it's unavoidable. But what about people who have a small role to play and then move tidily to the background to provide atmosphere? How much do you want to see?
It's also important to remember that the details provided tell the reader as much about the person observing them (the POV character) as they do about the person being observed. Here's a raw piece of dialogue which contains the introduction of a minor character.
"You better pay attention to the game. Tab's about to steal second."I haven't give you any underpainting here (no indication of body language or tone), but a lot comes through anyway about all three characters -- the two talking, and the one they are talking about. The most factual information is about Wyatt, of course. you know that he's a big guy with a long flowing beard to his waist (if you know who ZZ Top is, which one of the speakers doesn't, and what does that mean?). You know (if you've been reading along in the novel) that he went to an exclusive private college and experimented with drugs while he was there. You know that he looks something like a biker or a backwoodsman, but in fact he teaches high school English, and has made a success of it. You also have a bit of a sense of the town he lives in. It's probably not an expensive suburb of Chicago or Indianapolis, because it's harder to imagine this particular teacher in a school there. You know that people who have a history aren't necessarily run out of town. You know that it's a small enough place that most people know most people, but big enough to be home to an exclusive private college."You know Tab?"
"He's been over to the house. I know all these guys, except the ZZ Top type playing shortstop."
"ZZ Top?"
"The beard."
"Ah. That's Wyatt Horton. Minored in low-end hallucinogens when he was at Ogilvie back in the day, been teaching English at the high school the last ten years. He's supposed to be a good teacher."
"According to who?"
What you don't know is, of course, a lot. You don't know if Wyatt's got classic good looks or terrible acne scars or if he's bald. You don't know if he has halitosis or a Boston accent or a taste for expensive wines. Do you need to know these things? Will they add anything to the story, or to the experience of reading the story?
This is the kind of thing I struggle with all the time. I try to err on the side of not too much, but reserve the right to go back and provide more detail. When I'm reading, I like to have a good description of characters. Major characters especially, but also minor characters. When an author takes the time and effort to make me really see the flight attendant or the clerk or the mayor whose droning on at the podium, I feel taken care of. I'm in the hands of a good storyteller, and I can relax and let it flow.
This is my take on things, but I wonder about other people's preferences.
July 20, 2004 02:10 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.tiedtothetracks.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/181
Comments
I'm more likely to forgive esoteric flourishes (extended landscape description, historic facts, detailed minor character descriptions) when I'm prepared to read them, or when the author's reputation revolves around them. Maybe it's a flaw in how I was taught "english lit" but it's almost like you read some authors for the flourishes alone.
For more popular creators, no, for *story*-tellers, I want them to get that plot moving, get the next juicy bit, move *me* along with it. It's like a story runs best at the speed of life. Story-tellers have to get on with it, and once the style of the story is established at the beginning, it's disappointing for it not to follow through to the end.
I've only been disappointed in this way by some sci-fi writers who describe a side-character so lovingly that I'm sure they wouldn't have wasted all my time for nothing. And then they did. I guess their story wasn't good enough for me to forget that they left me hanging.
Posted by: Pam at July 20, 2004 10:28 AM
My take is this: the development of the character by the author doesn't necessarily have to show directly in the story, but if the autor has a good feel for the backstory, that character comes through (even when briefly mentioned) and perhaps he/she may decide to jump back in down the road when the author needs a character to do something in a scene. This backstory development on characters, as well as locale, provides richness to the author and to the reader. There can be a fast paced story, where there isn't a lot of detail included in the story itself when the author has cared enough to think about the world and characters. The story will then flow and have meaning and richness without the audience necessarily realizing the author has invested all that time.
Add detail when its relevant, but leave it out when not needed. In my opinion, it definitely shows when the author puts thought even into minor characters; they are less stereotypical and two dimenstional.
Posted by: Catherine at July 20, 2004 12:53 PM
what interesting comments. The idea of a story moving at the speed of life is something I'm going to think about... and Pam, I think your conclusion about the disappointing sci-fi novel makes sense. If the story is good enough, an author can get away with quite a bit.
Catherine, I'd like to think you're right, that you can have a fast paced story that is also rich in detail. I guess that's what I aim for, myself.
Posted by: sara at July 20, 2004 03:59 PM