%%USERNAME%%    %%ACCWORDS%% %%ONOFF%% |
 |  This is a continuation of my blogging here at WdC |
|
This will be a blog for my writing, maybe with (too much) personal thrown in. I am hoping it will be a little more interactive, with me answering questions, helping out and whatnot. If it falls this year (2024), then I may stop the whole blogging thing, but that's all a "wait and see" scenario. An index of topics can be found here: "Writing Blog No.2 Index"  Feel free to comment and interact. |
| WHY AM I DOING THIS? Okay, I was asked this question yesterday (my time) and it got me thinking.... Sorry... what question? Why are you writing a blog about writing for a website about writing where hardly anyone reads it and even less would care about it? (For the record, it was not a question asked here on WdC, but by someone who asked what I was working when they saw me typing at the library.) I do say that I am in "pay it forward" mode. This means I have received help in the past (and even now - people reading a novel who are giving vital feedback - continue to help me) and am now giving what little help I may be able to do to others. It makes me feel like my existence here is not worthless. There is another reason why I do it. I do it because if all writers improve, then all writing is seen as better, and we are all taken more seriously by association. In this day and age of so much easy online publishing and even self-publishing, if what people put out there is poorly written and edited, everyone is tarred also by association. This is not me saying all self-publishing is poorly written and edited! This is me stating that it is less likely (not impossible; definitely not - see James, EL - just less likely) that trad publishing is poorly edited and poorly written! But this is more about blogs, Medium articles, social media and other forms of purely online writing! What I am saying is that we all owe it to ourselves and our profession to ensure everyone is as good as they can be in all aspects of writing. So that is why I am doing this blog. Selfish - to make me feel like I am doing something - and altruistic - helping people who cannot help me. |
| Depicting Thoughts In Writing So, your characters are thinking things. These things are like the character is talking to themselves inside their own mind. Now, first, in a first person PoV story, this is difficult to pull off as the whole story is the character talking to themselves as well as the reader. However, it may become necessary to use this. On the other hand, showing the real thoughts of a character in a 3rd person PoV story is where this can almost be vital. This is, of course, based on my experiences in trad publishing. In self-publishing it might help to follow this because of reader expectation. Nearly all publishers I have dealt with use italics as thought identifiers. This has become expected by readers, and so is what is most often used. It also differentiates from actual, spoken words. e.g.: "I hate you!" Jane screamed at John. I wish I could tell you how I really felt, she added in her own mind. Please note: I know that the construction of the sentence is clunky and awful and "in her own mind" is almost redundant, but this is me playing Captain Obvious. Having said that, quite a few publishers in South East Asia prefer underlining as they also accept stories not in the Latin character set, so if you're not sure about a publisher, shoot them an e-mail. But every publisher I've dealt with - and when I have worked as a reader or editor - italics are what I have found is the most preferred method. In this case, all the rules of direct speech apply... except, of course, the use of quotation marks. See "20240125 Direct Speech" for some of those rules.Having said that, if you read the classics, thoughts will be represented thus: "I hate you!" Jane screamed at John. I wish I could tell you how I really felt -- she added in her own mind. Please note: the double hyphen there is an em-dash —. And some will even use parentheses: "I hate you!" Jane screamed at John. (I wish I could tell you how I really felt, she added in her own mind.) Those last two are not so common today, and I'd say unless you read otherwise on a publisher's guidelines, use italics. My God, the writer thought, looking at his completed work, I think I've done it! |
| A Different Sort Of Story People often ask me why I did professional wrestling (and for some of my exploits, well, "Ring Rusted" ). Was it the physicality? The chance to entertain? The joy of slamming a grown man back first onto the ground? Getting hit by a chair? Bleeding everywhere? Yes... to all.But there is something else, something that only fans might realise. A wrestling match is a story. It's fine to do moves and be impressive, but unless you tell a story in that ring, unless your match is part of a greater story, the crowd will not be invested. Even an awful match can keep a crowd rapt if the story is strong enough. I give you Hulk Hogan v Andre the Giant at Wrestlemania III. The match was terrible, but the story of Andre turning on Hogan to get a shot at that title and Hogan struggling to slam the largest athlete in the USA had 93000 (allegedly, let's say the real number was closer to 80,000, but that is still a huge crowd) people in attendance. The story, that one story, drew them into that arena. Then there is my favourite Wrestlemania match ever, from Wrestlemania VII (and we're about to hit #40 in April this year) - Randy Savage v Ultimate Warrior. Savage came into the (then) WWF as a bad guy (heel), an arrogant heel with amazing skills. After WM3, though he slowly became a good guy. See, he was always accompanied by Miss Elizabeth, a very pretty lady. And some other bad guys tried to harm her, so Savage fought them, but the numbers advantage was theirs. Enter Hulk Hogan, champion and all-round good guy (face). He helped Savage and they formed a team - the MegaPowers. Then, through shenanigans, Hogan lost the title and it was held up, to be fought at a tournament at WM4. Savage won the title, and there he was, soaking in the adoration of everyone, Miss Elizabeth on his shoulder, the crowd loving him. There were many trials and tribulations over the next year, and Hogan grew closer and closer to Miss Elizabeth and Savage lost it, so at WM5, the MegaPowers exploded, and Hogan had one of his best career matches when he beat Savage for the title. Savage stalked away... leaving Elizabeth as well. Savage soon won the title of King of the Ring, and became the Macho King, taking on Sensational Sherri as his valet, Elizabeth disappearing. Hogan would go on to WM6 for another of his very best matches when he faced Ultimate Warrior for the title. Warrior defeated him, winning his first world title. However, on the undercard, Savage and Sherri faced Dusty Rhodes and a non-wrestler named Sapphire. Rhodes brought out Miss Elizabeth in their corner and she helped Rhodes and Sapphire win in what was a truly terrible match, but one that, again, had the crowd in the palm of their hand. Savage had fallen to the absolute bottom of the pit, the lowest of the low, losing to a non-wrestler, and an overweight, over-the-hill wrestler. At the Royal Rumble the next year, Savage asked for a title shot of the winner of the Sgt Slaughter-Ultimate Warrior match. Warrior told him never. So, in the middle of the match, Savage belted Warrior in the head with a sceptre, costing Warrior the match and his title. Thus we come to WM7. Warrior v Savage. Career v career. Loser retires. Warrior's best ever match; my favourite WM match. And the match told its own story. Warrior worked Savage over slowly and methodically, but every time he tried a higher risk move, Savage took the advantage, using Warrior's emotions against him. After a great match, Warrior won. But it wasn't over. Sherri saw that her meal ticket was gone and she attacked Savage, already beaten senseless by Warrior. Miss Elizabeth came out the crowd and made the save. In the middle of the ring, Savage and Elizabeth reunited. People in the crowd were literally crying. Long term story telling - the rise, fall and redemption of a beloved wrestler, culminating in the release of genuine emotion. Does that story sound familiar? Like, maybe, the rise, fall and redemption of Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader in the first 6 Star Wars films? Stories are our bread and butter. We write the stories for others to enjoy. But do not sell short the stories of all the arts (and, yes, professional wrestling is an art - a violent art, but that is what it is). Everything can tell a story. And we should be open to it all. |
| How To Write An Essay So, a few people seem to want to know how to write a decent essay. While most of my experience has been academic essays, I have had 5 essays published in a more informal context. However, the rules are still the same. This also goes for opinion pieces, but does not cover memoir. Memoir is a beast all its own with no hard and fast rules. It’s too personal. Memoir is whatever you want it to be. Back to the essay form. And this is very general. Make sure you know your audience before starting, I guess. There are three parts to an essay – introduction, body, conclusion. The introduction introduces the topic of the essay. It is either one or two paragraphs generally, where paragraph one tells the reader what idea, concept or opinion you are putting forth, and paragraph two (if needed) defines terms that may need clarification, either because the terms are technical or because general vernacular has made the actual meanings muddied. This section is vital, as it hooks the reader and sets out the aims of your essay. The body is the largest section. By far. Each new paragraph is a new idea to support the essay’s central theme, or a new idea that supports your opinion. The opening sentence is the “topic sentence,” telling the reader what you are going to be looking at, and then the rest gives support to this claim. In an academic essay, the support is all referenced (by whatever method you use); in other essays, it should be supported by facts, figures and quotes. Quick note on quotes: if you have 2 quotes from 2 different people supporting one topic sentence, they stay in the same paragraph. The rules of new speaker, new paragraph do not follow here. Next topic, or idea, whatever, is a new paragraph with its own support sentences. And so on. How many is too many? Depends. For a general opinion piece of essay, three is seen as about right, so pick your best three ideas you can write about. I know a few magazines put the number at 5. Our local paper asks for 4 to 7. So, again, there are no hard and fast rules, but if you want a reader to actually read it, then I would say 100 is too many. Finally comes the conclusion. This should be a very brief summary of the facts you have put forward in the body. No new information is introduced in a conclusion. The conclusion is also where the writer puts their opinion, if doing so is warranted. In an opinion piece, the opinion is emphasized throughout the entire work, so the conclusion just reiterates this. As for language, formal is necessary for an academic essay, otherwise, it depends entirely upon your audience or the publication you are aiming for. Check first, and then write how you feel comfortable. So, that’s essay writing. In general. |
| What Makes A Story This is one of the first questions that was asked of me when I said I was going to be writing this blog. And the answer is simple: How long is a piece of string? Seriously, there is nothing hard and fast. However, something needs to happen. And it needs to happen to characters, even if they are inanimate objects. And this happening should result in a change, whether to the characters, emotions, their world or to something important to the story. Even a perception of the world; like, what changed in a Godzilla film? Humans suddenly knew about another kaiju or that Godzilla had powers they didn’t know about. It’s a small change, but it is still a change, one that could have far-reaching implications. That is actually rather simplistic, and this brings up a technicality that many writers argue about – the difference between story and plot. Plot is often taken as the sequence of events, the order in which things happen. The story, on the other hand, is the bits that make a story more than just a series of “then… then… then…” events. Story brings a story to life, focusing on characters, emotional beats, underlying themes, etc. To go a little further on this point: all fiction and a lot of non-fiction is based on a story. Something happens. It starts, there’s a middle section with the action, there’s an ending and the people involved have gone through a lot. Many consider it a story, as I said, only if there is a change. But, again, some works indicate that is not always the case. Story-telling is what makes this story into something interesting or worth reading. To explain this, a plot without a real story is an anecdote, like a guy telling a story at the pub, or a vignette (an event with no set-up or real pay-off). The pub guy and his mate were fishing, a seal stole all their fish, they gave up and went home. Is that really a story? Was anything actually changed (apart from a seal getting a meal)? If the tale started with waking up, deciding to go fishing because they’d had a bad week at work, casting their lines, discovering that fish keep going missing, getting angry, finally seeing the seal, and realising the bad week is going to stay bad, so they went to the pub instead, and what had changed is that they are resigned to their fate, the theme of acceptance is there. Now we have added a little bit of story-telling, and the anecdote has started to become what is considered a proper story. This is where it becomes awkward because some stories feel like nothing has changed. Last Year At Marienbad (a boring film that won awards everywhere) is a prime example. Whether you consider that a story or not is your own interpretation, but to me it feels more like a stream of consciousness. So, what I am saying is that publishers will have expectations of something happening and a change occurring with some sort of theme (even if not necessarily overt; I personally do not write to a theme, but they apparently exist in my writing). But that is not necessarily the case. Experimental writing can be story-less. Anecdotes can be simple and without story elements, just bare bone plots. But, in the end, the simplest explanation for what makes a story a story is: do you like what you have written and are you, the writer, entertained by it? If yes, then it's a story. It's your story. |
| Drabbles! What is a Drabble? Fair question. It comes up here on WdC a bit, so let's hit it. Let's start at the very beginning. The word Drabble comes from a Monty Python sketch in which contestants had to write a novel in a day. How that came to mean a 100-word story is anyone's guess, but it involves Oxbridge students and alcohol (maybe stronger substances). A Drabble is now a story of exactly 100 words. Exactly 100. Some say the title is included in the word count, some don't, others say the title should be no longer than 10 words... or, in the case of a UK magazine, exactly 10 words, and in the case of an online US site, one word only. To be a true Drabble, it needs to be a work of fiction with a beginning, middle and end. Not an anecdote or vignette. However, the definition has shifted to include 100-word scripts (so much fun!), essays (still with intro, body and conclusion), memoirs (must have an ending) and even poetry. As an aside, more challenging is writing a rhyming poem with definite syllable count in exactly 100 words. Then there is a Drabble Trio, where there are 3 interconnected and yet separate Drabbles. I had two of these published online. And there is a Drabble Story, where each of 10 chapters is exactly 100 words (chapter 1, 1, etc. is included in the word count). Then there is the 40-word or 50-word challenge, writing something in exactly 40 or 50 words, and the 6-word story. This last one comes from an apocryphal tale of Hemingway being challenged to write a story in as few words possible and he came up with: For sale: baby shoes. Never worn. This was not Hemingway, but the actual author is hard to ascertain. There are a few online publishers who use Drabbles as a way to get eyeballs. I had one published in a book called Banned Drabbles, where we had to write a Drabble that was an introduction to the short story we had in the book Banned. Black Hare Press used to release books of Drabbles regularly; I had a lot of sales there as well. So it might seem frivolous, but there are genuine markets for these. I am currently trying to sell a book of 366 Drabbles, one for each day of the year, a mixture of fiction, essay, memoir, script and even a couple of poems. There are a couple of Drabble Trios and one Drabble Story in it as well. I have almost got enough to have a second volume. I have written heaps, but many are actually rubbish, so they will not be included. I use Drabbles as a way to practise keeping my prose tight, and if I ever feel I am falling behind on my word count (I write 250 words a day, every day, without fail), a couple of Drabbles can help. And I have waffled on way too long. This could be 10 Drabbles on its own! |
| Adjective Order Here is something you probably know but may not realise you know. There is a distinct order in adjectives in English. It happens naturally for native English speakers, but we often cannot put out finger on why a non-native speaker sounds wrong when they use adjectives out of order. Oh, an adjective is a word used to describe a noun. Just so we’re all on the same page here. So, what is the order? Here it is: number, opinion, size, physical quality, shape, age, colour, origin, material, type, purpose... in proper English. US English tends to put age before shape, but not all the time. So we’ll stick with the Oxbridge manner of doing things. Here’s an explanation: 0. number: how many of an object; some do not consider this an adjective two, 127, a few 1. opinion: what a person thinks of the object funny, pretty, odd 2. size: how big or not big an object is tiny, large, four-feet-tall 3. physical quality: the general appearance of the object thin, untidy, smooth 4. shape: relating to the geometrical dimensions of the object round, triangular, cuboid 5. age: how old the object is young, childish, old 6. colour: the hue or tone an object is blue, red, light mauve 7. origin: the place an object comes from; this is most often a proper noun adjective Dutch, Cornish, Mexican 8. material: what the object is made out of denim, metal, wood 9. type: if there is a specific form that needs to be emphasised, or if the object is like something general-purpose, four-sided, bread-like 10. purpose: what the object is used for cleaning, hammering, cooking So: My Big Fat Greek Wedding, the title of the movie, is 2, 3, 7. I saw a beautiful, tall, thin, middle-aged, blonde-haired, Norwegian woman is 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 You really have to force the issue to have all 10 (11) in a list... Now, when I was younger, we were told that you not only separate a list of adjectives by commas, but you also put “and” between the last two. This is only compulsory if the list of adjectives comes after a form of the verb “to be”, relating to an object before that verb. So, She was a small, shy dog has no “and” because “dog” comes after “was”; meanwhile, The dog was small and shy has an “and” because the adjectives describe the dog, and they come after “was”, while dog comes before. If you have two adjectives from the same number, they are also often separated by an “and”: he wore a red and green hat. But if there are three, then there is only one and: he wore a red, yellow and green hat. Even if we add other adjectives: he wore a stupid, red and green, plastic hat. Adjectives! Easy? Yeah, sure… |
| Pulp Fiction Pulp fiction is the term used for the stories written in the early twentieth century when mass-produced paperbacks first became popular and inexpensive to produce. The term comes from the type of paper used in the books - cheap, nasty, prone to falling apart after a few years. The pulp of proper paper-making processes formed into nasty paper. the glue was cheap as well and the covers were lurid and often hyper-sexualised. They were all genre fiction - detective, science fiction, horror, fantasy and western mainly, though erotica was also pulp - and the term "pulp" also came to be associated with the magazines that catered for these audiences, as they also used the same cheap paper and over-the-top covers. Many people consider the era of the pulps to have died in the 1950s as first science fiction, then fantasy, then the rest came to be taken a little more seriously by the establishment and cheaper printing processes meant the need for pulp paper diminished. However, there is something else that made a pulp story a pulp story beyond the paper and the fact it was a genre title. The stories had one focus - entertain the reader. There were no underlying messages. There were no political points. There were no hidden agendas. There was no pandering to trends in capital-L literature. No, all the writer wanted to do was entertain the reader. Give them a book where they could guess how it would end, giving them what they wanted and had wanted for years. They could start the book at the start of a long bus or plane ride, then, at the end, sell it to a second-hand shop, knowing they'd been entertained for a few hours. What's interesting is that romance as a genre did not start as a pulp fiction; it was deemed higher class than that. However, nowadays, it is Mills & Boon, Harlequin, et al. who keep that quick read, fun read, give the audience what they expect pulp fiction vision alive more than any other genre. So, pulp fiction faded as pulp fiction, killed off for good, it is said, by the Internet where anyone can write anything and post it or publish it. However, I think what I write is pulp fiction. It’s what I sell, it’s what I read. It just has a different name today: “Disposable fiction”; “Light reading”; “Crap” (that last one TM my ex-wife). It’s just that too many writers and way too many publishers want “depth” and “hidden meanings” and “themes” in everything, as if nothing will be read that doesn’t beat you over the head with its message. On the other hand, a majority of people want to read something that will entertain them for a while. They don’t want to have their work of fiction be used as an excuse to proselytise about the evils of the patriarchal society towards the lesser Amazonian shrew-lizard. They want a story to entertain them. That’s where we come in – the pulp fiction writers of the modern world. So I ask this: Why does something have to be “relevant”? Why can’t it just be written to entertain, as escapism? Just write something that people will want to read, enjoy reading and want to share. That’s all… And I know I am in the minority here, but I enjoy (and write and sell) pulp fiction, so this is a personal take on the topic. |
| Mary Sue/Marty Stu (Gary Stu) Following yesterday's post, I was asked what a Mary Sue was. Simply put - this is a character to avoid. In general. A Mary Sue/Marty Stu is a character who is a thinly veiled and idealised version of the author put into the story for one of three things – wish fulfillment, self-aggrandisement, and/or narcissism. There is not really a consensus of what actually makes a character a Mary Sue, but generally they are the best-looking (or have some minor flaws that they are later told are beautiful anyway), have something unusual about them physically or mentally (not like other girls is the trope here), have enhanced skill or knowledge or intelligence or wisdom, and are usually the centre of absolutely everything in the story. Worse, they "fix" the bad boy. Against everything psychology tells us is possible. A Marty (Gary) Stu is the male counterpart. He is good at sports, good at school, likes reading and doing things that other tease him about, but is generally liked by everyone. And he "fixes" the broken girl. Broken? Yeah, bad choice of words, but that is how it is portrayed, even though the girl might just be sad, depressed or just feeling lonely. I don't make the rules. Oh, the girl cannot sleep around because the Marty Stu would never help a "slut." And, again, I wish I was joking. Famous Mary Sues include Bella Swan (Twilight), Anastasia Steele (50 Shades Of Grey - one of the worst), and Hermione Granger (Harry Potter books). Famous Marty Stus include Eragon (Eragon), James Bond (in the books), and Superman (the original comics). In some cases – Hermione, Bond and Superman – the creators have admitted they are author inserts. The others it feels obvious. I will say, Hermione Granger and Superman overcame their Sue/Stu origins because of the skills of the writers. The other 4... not so much! Now, if you want to write yourself into this situation (especially popular in fan fiction), then that is fine – it is your story. And, note, all the examples I have given come from very well-selling books or comics series. Just because a character is a Mary Sue/Marty Stu does not mean the story will fail to work. Just be aware that audiences are growing more and more wary of them, but they have worked in the past, and will continue to work in the future, if done well or combined with other story objects. However, as a character... they are usually not good. |
| Characters - An Overview Just some notes on characters. 1. Realistic Characters I started my writing like many others, basing characters almost completely on people I knew. Made it easy because they were real people. But, for a writer, I feel we should probably go beyond that. To write a realistic character, still think about real life, but all the people you know. What makes you despise certain people and adore others? Ask other people what they like/dislike about a person. You will be surprised how things are so different. What you like, they might hate; what you can’t stand they might find endearing. What I am trying to say is that there is no universal “like/dislike”. I think the character of Juliet is over-dramatic and a real prima donna, while Romeo is a guy under the thrall of his friends and his ego and won’t admit it. I have a former partner who thinks Juliet is in the throes of deep love and Romeo is trying to be her hero – she loves both characters. We read the same play and got different things out of it. (FWIW, in the play, Mercutio is my favourite character because he sees how stupid the situation is and calls them out before dying.) In this case, actions really help a writer. Bad guys are a tough call to get right without going into cartoon villainy. They don’t have to be as overt as drowning kittens, but a dislikeable character might talk down to a shop staffer, roll their eyes at some-one’s idea, shake their head when they see what some-one else is reading – being judgemental or superior or condescending works well. On the other hand, in the case of a hero, make some-one too sweet and wanting to be liked can have the opposite effect and the reader gets sick of them. Little actions help – they might hold a door for a stranger, they might listen to the shop-keeper’s story of the last customer and laugh at the right place, they might simply ask some-one who can do them no favour how they are going. But you also need to add reality. A nasty character might still ring their mum every Sunday; a good character might still roll their eyes when they see some-one reading Twilight. It’s a fine line. Shades of grey actually work well in making characters realistic. Not completely evil or completely good, but with layers. Also, remember that nearly every bad guy does not think they are doing the wrong thing; they can usually justify all of their behaviours. Something else important to note – we seem to have reached a point where the gender of the protagonist does not matter. What matters is if they are relatable, realistic, and do what fits with the character... and that the story they are in is engaging. As an addendum, writing a character into a horror scenario, it is best to make them as ordinary as possible, because if the main character is an ‘everyman’ type, then it becomes all the more horrific because the reader gets the feeling it might be them in that situation. 2. Writing Characters Sometimes we find characters easy to write. These are the ones who are generally like us. But that is a very small percentage of the world. We need to include others in our stories. Sure, we can do it superficially, and if that is what you want, that is fine. But if we want some more realism, then maybe we need to ask. I used to have the issue of writing female characters who were actual people, not two-dimensional cut-outs. What I did was deliberately write a few all-female stories, gave then to a number of female readers (like, maybe, 5 or so), and sit down with each of them over coffee and cake while they told me what I’d got wrong. If more than 2 of them told me the same thing, then I knew I’d really messed up. In fact, there were an unfortunately large number of things that all of them told me I was lousy at. By the time we got to the fourth or fifth story (and we are talking maybe eighteen months or so later) there were a lot less things they were picking on me for. Now I feel so much more comfortable writing a female character, and I have even had female-led stories published. I have done the same thing more recently with gay characters, both male and female, and male Indigenous Australian characters. This comes back to something I mentioned before – ask. Not just occupations, but based on other aspects of their belief system, their race, their sexuality, their gender, their religion. And you would be surprised how much we all have in common as well, which makes it easier to write these characters sympathetically. If people know you are a writer, they are even more likely to talk to you, in my experience. Again, if you want to have stereotypes in your stories, then that is fine. It might be a hard sell, but it is your story. Even some big-sellers rely on them (J.K. Rowling, E.L. James, etc.), so do not feel you have to get everything perfect. It is, again, your story to tell the way you want to tell it. However, avoid the Mary Sue/Marty Stu (Gary Stu) character. Never, ever a good option. Most common in fan-fic, but still there in other forms of writing. 3. Secondary Characters I’ll just list what helps make secondary characters work in a story: I) Put the same care into a secondary character as a main character. Base them on people you know, make them realistic, whatever works for you. II) Secondary characters are often written as a walking personality trait. That is the uninspired way of doing it (and appears often in animated films). They need to be more than “emo boy” or “perky girl” or whatever. Make them three-dimensional, not just two-dimensional things. III) Secondary characters should not just be mirrors of the main characters. If a main character reacts a certain way, there is no reason secondary characters would do the same thing. They need to be treated as individuals. IV) Likewise, secondary characters should not just be there to play devil’s advocate either. They need to behave the way a friend, or companion, or peer, or sibling, or whatever the relationship is, would in real life. V) Description can help make secondary characters come to life. As the ancient Greeks used to say, "Clothes make the man." Clothing can be really helpful in showing (as opposed to telling) who a person is/wants to be – trendy, jock, etc – especially when it comes to teenagers and young adults. For older characters, it could also give an idea of what they do for a living. But going for exactitudes – “Tom was six foot one, weight 214 pounds and could bench press 250 pounds” – is nearly always not important. In fact, it generally isn't even needed in main characters. Having said all that, some stories have bland secondary characters to focus the reader more on the main characters. Most Robert E. Howard and H.P. Lovecraft tales fall into this category. 4. Character Construction Some people use templates of character sheets to help them flesh out their characters. This stems from Role Playing Games where character sheets are vital for keeping tabs of everything. When I write fantasy, I use them all the time, and I do know other people who have developed their own versions. And even though by the end of a story, they can end up a mess as extra details are added, it does help keep things consistent. But to really bring a character to life, there needs to be inner thoughts. Their actions should reflect who they are. Further, their motivations should make sense. This last one is often neglected unfortunately. And characters do need to be consistent in their actions. Characters need to exhibit emotional responses (unless the characters are sociopaths or robots or aliens). If a character does not respond emotionally to any situation, then you are leaving out a huge chunk of motivation and what drives a character forward (or otherwise). A character is wounded – revenge or fear has to come from it. They are dumped by the girlfriend – they might stoically go on but inside they are broken. Their mum dies – they are sad. If you ignore the emotions, then you are ignoring your character. If using non-humans (this can include gods, animals, demi-humans, aliens, etc.) as secondary characters, remember they are not human and should not act as humans in a different skin. Otherwise, why put them in your story at all? Why not just have more humans? This is a problem in a lot of fantasy and science fiction. Looking different and actually being different seems to be lost in a lot of works. Characters need to do things that are realistic. For example, a common one is an untrained person running for a few dozen miles to escape something. That adrenalin rush does not last that long, and if you don't tear a muscle, your lungs will scream at you and make you stop anyway. Their responses also need to be realistic. Seeing a dead body for the first time does not make some-one come up with a quick witticism – it is disgusting and horrible and your first instinct is to back away or throw up. And they stink. Moving a body is really awkward – they are a complete dead weight (excuse the pun) and flop around and are just unpleasant to even touch, or if rigor has set in, they are even harder. And, yes, that is personal experience talking. Finally, and this is the most important thing – characters, especially the main characters, need to grow during the course of the story, not just be the same after it's all over. Or else what has happened has meant very little. That is brief (no, really, it is), and very generalised, but I hope it does help someone. |
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
thinking. 
