Everyday Canvas

Fictional Characters’ Looks Aren’t That Important

Yesterday, we watched, however briefly, a movie made in the 1940s. It was George Bernard Shaw’s Caesar and Cleopatra. My husband remarked, “Is this a farce? Look at how the characters are so fake.” What was on the screen was like a joke to us, not because of the lack of technology, but the way the characters spoke and acted. At first, we thought, this was because, when it came to physical looks, people depended on word of mouth or pen without the discovery of cameras. Although at times, representational art helped some, it wasn’t enough because even that depended on the painter’s vision.

Afterwards, we guessed that, in those earlier times of the cinema, the movie industry focused more on fanciful settings, costumes, and adornments than what the movie meant or if the characters showed at least some depth. The way they looked could be close to the truth, but who could be sure of that without them showing their internal beings?

In written stories and especially good ones, the readers feel closely acquainted with the leading characters, as if they knew them in real life. Yet, the portrayal of such characters usually lacks a full pictorial description. What they look like is only sketchy. Even those authors who are better at physical description offer us stray body parts, but does this really matter?

As an example, let’s take Hemingway’s Catherine Barkley in Farewell to Arms, as she is one of the most visually described Hemingway characters: “Miss Barkley was quite tall…was blonde and had a tawny skin and gray eyes. I thought she was very beautiful.” To Frederick Henry, the protagonist and her lover, Catherine’s hair is important, as he talks about the feel of it in detail. As to its physical description, he says she had wonderfully beautiful hair which was very shiny. She also had a “lovely face and body and lovely smooth skin, too.” If one had to draw a word-perfect portrait of Catherine from this description most of her physical assets would have to be left blank. Yet, what made Catherine real in the story was her strong character and personality.

Literary characters are vague, physically speaking, and that’s the way it should be. I recall a teacher saying this about character description: “Characters are like cryptograms made richer by the partial omission of their physical traits.”

If I saw the character as flesh and blood in front of my eyes, would I be able to see what he or she is like inside? After all, I see lots of people in real life whose internal lives are a mystery to me. There is a big difference between seeing and understanding, and I think in writing, understanding has to be more important. Even in everyday life, a real person becomes more beautiful (or uglier) in proportion to our knowing their true nature.