Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw
But one piece of writing can achieve multiple things at the same time. When writing descriptions it is sometimes possible (and desirable) to tease the reader into filling out the details for you, and that can be done for back-story just as it is done for settings and character descriptions.
Here's one line of dialogue from Until I Find You by John Irving. It's said by Mr Ramsey as he drives 10yo Jack to his new boys-only school:
"Never be afraid to take a beating, Jack. At the very least, it's an acting opportunity."
I think it's quite wonderful how much this one line tells you about about Mr Ramsey. Even if this had been all that Irving gave (it wasn't), the picture is almost complete. To me this reads as a flash-back in hiding (Mr Ramsey has taken beatings), and a character portrayal (how he dealt with them) all in one line.
|
Yes--and lines like that are why Irving is a master of the craft. I remember seeing a line that really caught my attention, in a Hallinan Poke Rafferty, for similar reasons. (It's sad that we actually remember them now, because great writing isn't everywhere these days...).
It's one of the reasons that I do oftentimes recommend the Snowflake method to new writers. Not because it's the only way to get there; it patently isn't. But the plethora of one-dimensional, cardboard characters virtually eliminates any possibility of seeing lines like Irving's from a manuscript.
Warning: small rant:
Spoiler:
Some of you may remember the story I tell, about the guy that finally made me give up editing--he killed off the desire, entirely, but one of the things that just irked me to the nth was, when I asked him about HOW he and his co-author-cum-ghost-writer had come up with the traits, etc., for their characters, and he responded that they'd used horoscope traits--and basically just filled in the names. Now...honestly, their character development was SO BAD that it surprised me that they had done that much--but they co-write SIX bloody novels, and through the end of the 6th, I knew NOTHING more about their protagonist-hero than I did at the start. Why? Because he wasn't a character, or a person. He existed for no reason other than to convey the story. He had no emotions--at all. He didn't get angry, mad, scared--nothing. He was Watson, if Watson was written by an AI, sans any interesting bits at all. Oh, he was supposed to be a manly man, an alleged former Army Ranger, with "mysterious" missions, etc., in his past, but...he was the most one-dimensional character I think I've ever suffered through. Of course, they also called them "mysteries," when, while they had murders, they had NO clues, no detective, and in at least 3, no mystery whatsoever. URRRGGGH, nearly a decade later, and those books STILL piss me off.
ANYWAY...the point being, for the typical new writer who actually works his/her way through the entire Snowflake Method, at least they know enough about their protags, by the end, to have a prayer in hell of dropping little bits and pearls like that, into their story.
I don't know about you guys, but I cannot tell a lie--I'm sick to death of the onslaught of the One-Dimensional Character, since the advent of self-pubbing in a big way.
So, this discussion is a good opportunity for you guys to use those fabulous lines, terrific bits of dialogue, etc., not merely to present info dumps, but to carve your characters into the mind of the reader--just as Irving did so deftly. :-) Keep carving!
Hitch